For some reason folks keep asking me, and no, I didn’t see the State of the Union because it was my bowling night. Nor am I overly interested in watching his royal smugness for any extended period of time anyway…a sentiment I know he’d agree with. After all, he said just a couple weeks ago that if Americans are concerned with disturbing or revolting images on their TV screens, they’ve really no cause to complain because there’s an off switch. And I concur, which is why I just turn the set off when he comes on.
From what I’ve read subsequently, he glossed over Iraq, which is smart, as Bush’s List grows and grows. And I think that the business of privatizing Social Security is antithetical to the very concept. Social Security stems from a time when the country endeavored to pull together generationally, with the young paying in to support the elderly. Privatization is a nice, neutral word to cover what it really is: Every Man For Himself. It has less of a feel of trying to fix the ship of state and more a sense of abandoning a sinking vessel.
Cling to the clock and pray the country survives him.
PAD
• 
1.) When noting income levels, are these levels in BEFORE tax dollars or AFTER tax dollars? This is important, because there is a huge difference. Let’s use $30,000.00 as an example. If they are before tax dollars, you can estimate that fully 30% of that wage will disappear into taxes of various types, all the way from basic income tax to sales tax to user fees, even to toll fees for commuters! Just some examples, not to be taken completely literally. However in this case, that $30,000 really represents only $20,000 to $21,000 in DISPOSABLE income. If that’s true and no more than 40% should go towards housing for example, then that translates into about $700 per month for rent at the top end. That leaves $12,600 for the rest of the year to cover food, clothes, vehicles, medical insurance (in the US), and maybe the odd movie on the weekend. So you can see that it leaves precious little to save for a rainy day, let alone breath easy. I don’t case hoe much financial planning you do in that situation, it just does not add up. Of course the situation is a bit easier (though not much) if that $30K is AFTER taxes.
2.) An example of why the government should NOT be in charge of the investments: Here in Friendly Manitoba we had a thing called the Crocus Fund. (and yes, you can apply the phonetic “Croak-Us” to the word if you wish as you’ll see.) Anyways, the government urged individuals to use this vehicle for their Registered Retirement Savings Plan (our equivalent of the 401K) with the added incentive of an extra 30% of the contribution in tax writeoff. For example, a person investing $1000 in Crocus would receive not only the tax credit for the $1K, but an additional credit for $300, AND the money would theoretically grow within the fund tax-free within the RRSP account.
Now, the mandate of the fund management was to invest the funds in Manitoba companies and earn a ROI based on the initial values of those companies combined with ongoing economic activity, all under the watchful eye of government managers. You can see where this is going, can’t you?
Long story short, a fall audit discovered some “irregularities” in the initial valuations of some of the companies chosen as fund investments. The result was that that fund shares carried a false value. When contributors heard this, there was a short-lived panic, short-lived because share selling was halted. The fund is still being extensively audited even now, and the head management has largely resigned. The current provincial government is trying to distance itself from responsibility, blaming the previous administration. The end result is going to be that the fund may have a value closer to 15% of that which was actually stated and thousands of Manitobans will have seen their hard-earned dollars go straight to money heaven.
So the minute you see any investment deal where government manages the funds a la a mutual pool, do not walk, but RUN as far and as fast as you can to get away from it, AND anything that may be affected by it, because it will surely be a house of cards and you will lose lose lose. So if this privatization scheme of Bush’s goes through, it will become very apparent very quickly that the real value of money will be closer to zero than anyone can even conceive. Mark my words.
Sigh…actually I was trying to convey how incredibly foolish people look when throwing around the L word. That’s all.
Well…yeah.
I mean, since the new season of The L Word doesn’t start for a couple more weeks.
😉
Privatization is a nice, neutral word to cover what it really is: Every Man For Himself.
Yes, it’ll be a sad day for America when the individual is given freedom of choice over what to do with his own property.
Of course, the key word there is “choice.” Most of the privatization/account schemes being floated don’t require everyone to set up private accounts. Most don’t require that of all young people.
Rather, the individual is given a CHOICE. Do you want to stick with the 10.6% OASI tax, and get retirement benefits that are guaranteed by the feds? Fine, you can do that. Some people prefer the security, or don’t trust their own financial know-how.
BUT, what if you’d rather keep some of your money, and invest it the way YOU want to? Then private accounts would allow you that option, that choice. I’m in my mid-20s, with a college education. I don’t enjoy paying $4000 a year in retirement taxes, and then having to save and invest more on top of that because the first four grand won’t produce a large enough return.
I want the CHOICE to invest MY money MY way. Is there risk? Sure, but I want the opportunity to take that risk. There’s a risk that I won’t make it to 65 too, and if that happens, then all those $4000 payments are lost. I’m not asking anything of anybody else. You like Social Security? Then stick with it. I just want freedom to be an option.
Folks above are suggesting raising the tax, or raising the maximum income level that is subject to the tax. When Social Security began, the OASI tax took just 2% of the first $3000 of income ($37,000 today). A maximum tax of $60 a year (about $800 today). Today, the tax is 10.6%, and applied to the first $87,000. Some people pay over $9200 a year just in Social Security retirement taxes.
In other words, the tax today is over five times what it was 60 years ago, and the taxable income is more than twice as much. (Benefits have risen too, but not that much.) Social Security already makes up 20% of the US Budget (about the same percentage as the entire Dept of Defense), and yet the program is still short on money, and some people want to raise those levels even *higher*.
Luigi Novi: Ah, but what
Note to self: Spell check what you write on this site before posting.
I meant sentence, not snetence.
Loren, the SS system isn’t short funds. It might be short fund in about 20 years or so, of we do nothing now.
Those choices you’re looking at having? Using the TSP as an example, you get a “choice” of about 5 different funds, each with a varying level of risk. I don’t know if that’s the kind of choice you’re expecting, but Bush is going to use TSP as a model, although he’s stated that there might be more funds available.
The problem? Having more funds means more administrative costs. Before you decide to support any new plan, I’d be demanding to see start up and administration costs, and a see how long it’ll be before the new system starts taking in more than it costs. If it really does cost trillions of dollars, it’s going to end up being just a different kind of administrative money sink.
MP, SS is paid for by taxes. We don’t have a flat tax scheme, and it’s somewhat progressive. Except for the SS tax, which is actuall REgressive. Someone working full time making $90K pays about 6% of their income into SS. Someone making double that, $180K, pays 3% of their income. The more you make over $90, the less spending power you’re putting into the program.
I’m not sure if benefits have been increased when the tax base has been increased. I also don’t know the kinds of numbers needed to address the coming shortfall in the program. But consider this.
According to other information posted above, a full 25% of US households make more than $90K. Using totally made up numbers, let’s say there are 100 million taxpayers. That means that a full 25 million are in that regressive SS tax group. Now, let’s assume that we increase the SS tax base to $100K. That means that 25 million people will be paying an effective 15% tax on $10,000, or $1,500 each. Or an annual $37,500,000,000….$37.5 billion, if I’ve counted my zeroes correctly. That’s for every $10,000 that 25% makes over $90K. , if the SS tax is raised even more.
If they don’t see an increase in benefits, there is some income redistribution involved. But don’t all taxes include some aspect of that?
Sorry if I seemed to kinda snap on ya, there was just this sense of deep bitterness to your post that triggered a reaction. (My perception, anyway. But that’s all any of us have to work with, yes? *g*)
No harm, no foul. It’s one of the challenges of this sort of thing–we are essentially having phone conversations with writing but of course a lot gets lost.
Re Social Security. Math makes my head hurt. The republicans should just shrug and let it go. If, in 20 years or so it looks like the whole deck of cards is about to collapse they can sit back and let the loyal opposition figure a way out of the mess.
I’m afraid it is part of our modern mindset that we don’t want to spend time, money or political capital on a crisis until it it a looming disaster. It would probably be smart to do something now but it’s probably not going to happen, anymore than people are probably willing to spend a few trillion dollars now planning for the Big California quake, the east coast mega tsunami or the explosion of the Yellowstone caldera.
Those choices you’re looking at having? Using the TSP as an example, you get a “choice” of about 5 different funds, each with a varying level of risk. I don’t know if that’s the kind of choice you’re expecting,
Well it’s not my ideal, but any choice is better than none.
The problem? Having more funds means more administrative costs.
Naturally. Treating large numbers of people in exactly the same way is efficient. If Ford only made one model car, and only in black, it could save a lot of costs, and they could sell a single car for less. But I think the availability of options is worth the trade-off.
Except for the SS tax, which is actuall REgressive. Someone working full time making $90K pays about 6% of their income into SS. Someone making double that, $180K, pays 3% of their income.
But benefits are, and always have been, scaled to the taxes paid. A person who made $90K gets the same SS benefits check that the $180K person does.
And people in upper income brackets get worse returns on their SS taxes than folks in lower brackets do. Their returns have gotten worse over time, too. While the maximum OASI tax is now 12 times what it originally was, the maximum benefit is only about 3 times as big.
According to other information posted above, a full 25% of US households make more than $90K.
But that’s households, and OASI taxes are applied on an individual basis. A husband and wife each earning $80K ($160K combined) both pay OASI taxes on every dollar they earn. Only when an individual’s earnings go above $87K are OASI taxes not taken out. And only about 10% of individuals make more than that.
>
Mr. David,
You should really avoid inferring if that’s the kind of result you’re going to get. I do not support Mr. Bush nor did I vote for him in any of his runs for office. I am, however, just a bit perturbed by your utter unwillingness to blame or condemn the people who are actually killing Americans for their acts.
Quite honestly, if you’re not going to bother getting yourself properly informed, you’d be better off skipping these political postings of yours. Anyone who’s actually been paying attention, for instance, has seen that the administration is trying like hëll to discourage anyone from thinking of their privatization as “privatization.”
I did watch most of the speach, because,as someone else noted, I’d rather see/hear/read something for myself and form an opinion about it rather than essentially be told what happened and what I should think about it. I don’t know much about SS in general, but all the back and forth and different statistical manipulations are just irritating. The thing that stuck out about the speach (other than the humorous sight of the Republicans giving standing ovations left and right while the Democrats were glued to their seats) was the schpeal about needing to become less dependent on middle east oil, finding cleaner renewable energy sources. I perked up. I was surprised to hear such things coming from Bush’s mouth. I thought “good for him. Maybe I’d actually have something good to say about him”. Then he followed it by pushing “nucular” energy. Um, I didn’t realize radioactive waste was “clean” at all, much less cleaner than wind or solar power. I mean, really, in this day and age of terrorism, do we really want more “nucular” power plants? Is there some huge draw back to solar and wind power that I’m missing? I’m no expert, but I’ve been doing some research on them because at some point I plan to plunk down some solar panels and a windmill on my property just for my own personal use (I’m really into self sufficiency and non-materialism) and the only drawbacks I’ve come across are initial set up expenses (which wouldn’t really be any more of an issue than building a nuclear power plant and doing the research and building facilities for waste disposal) and living in an area of the country with enough wind or year round sun exposure (which wouldn’t be an issue on a large scale I assume, because you’d set up “fields” of either windmills or solar panels, collect or convert or whatever the energy, and pump it out to homes much like the current grid works).
Anywhat, it’s late for me and I think I’m babbling, so I’ll stop now.
Monkeys.
Living within your means is very easy to say…
to some it may be easy to do as well, but only for the very lucky. But what happens then when you are forced to deal with emergencies that you have no ability to foresee? Insurance only covers so much… (and even then if your lucky enough to have ensurance!) My job never offered insurance and paid just barely over the minimum wage hear in california… Luckily my wifes job did have insurance and we got married before I got diagnosed with PKD. (Otherwise I would have suffered the same problems as a freind of mine who is subject to the occasional epileptic seizures, his job doesn’t have insurance coverage either, it pays well enough but he’s had no luck finding an insurance plan to cover him that he can afford.) As it is we still live paycheck to paycheck, barely saving any money. We aren’t in debt but thats only due to the Medical Insurance. My wife and I are forced to live within our means. Without the insurance we’d be deep in debt and living on the streets wich makes it incredibly hard to keep a professional job…
I’m playing catch up on this topic, but I just had to respond to a few things:
PAD,
“I think that the business of privatizing Social Security stems from a time when the country endeavored to pull together generationally, with the young paying in to support the elderly.”
What a nice,nostalgic, Rockwellian look at the past.
Putting aside for the moment that it’s also bovine excrement, let’s look at TODAY, shall we?
1.)The system was and still is a Ponzi scheme. It used to be easier to get away with because there used to be 16 workers paying for everyone who receives benefits. Now there are only 3 for every person who receives benefits. Soon there will be two. Which means, essentially, that every working couple in America will be paying for the retirement of another “parent”. Is this fair to them? I think absolutely not.
2.) Speaking of generations “endeavoring together”, well things have changed dramatically in that regard.
When Social Security was created, the elderly were the poorest age group. They are now the wealthiest. They own the homes (and summer homes) and cars, etc.
Since the elderly have grown so exponentially as a percentage of the population, they receive an overwhelming amount of dollars, programs and slice of the federal budget pie.
There’s Medicare and Medicaid, and pushes for more government help on prescription drugs, etc.
On top of all this, the Joes and Janes just getting by are expected to pay the social security benefits for the retired the couple with the summer home in Florida. That’s the way the system is set up now, and it’s NOT FAIR. It is simply WRONG!
Mark Walsh,
“Personal accounts, ok? Great. I’m glad we’re on the same page. Doesn’t matter what they call it – it’s just another Bush scheme to make sure the Haves have more.”
WRONG! The way the system is set up now, YOU are paying for the “haves”, namely the wealthiest age group in our society to get paid benefits whether they are Ted Turner or somebody’s grandmother in a nursing home. And if you die at, say, 60 under the current system, you get SQUAT! What Bush is proposing would allow you to help fund YOUR retirement, and pass it on to your widow or children should you pass on.
Fred Chamberlain,
“A statement that includes both ‘America is better off with…’ and his proposed Social Security changes left me shaking my head,”
You seem to do that a lot. Shaking your head, I mean. Do you have a neurological disorder or something?
Seiously, though. I don’t recall him using that phrase in regard to Social Security at all. I checked the transcript of the speech in The New York Times and could not find it there either.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say just don’t recall and that Jayson Blair secretly submitted the transcript to the Times, America and Americans will be better off with the changes he is proposing.
“wondering how anyone can say for certain that a country is better off when initiating a program has not yet begun”
Well, nothing is certain except death and taxes. But he is confident it will be positive, as are (and have been) many others like the late Senator Moynihan. Or didn’t you get that in your all-encompassing soundbites?
By your logic, FDR should have been wishy-washy on creating Social Security, LBJ on Medicare, and they would never have passed.
And I didn’t agree with Clinton on Health Care Reform, but you could tell he was confident it was the right thing to do.
It’s called leadership.
“and has no comparable predecessor.”
Wrong! Chile has had a simlar system to what Bush is proposing in place for a long time now. Back in the ’90s, I remember an article in Time that spotlighted it, in which the writer was amazed that the citizens of Chile were getting a better retirement value under their system than the citizens of the wealthiest nation on Earth.
“More magical thinking from the leader of the free world.”
No. More ill-informed comments from you.
“…or perhaps Bush should put together a Brain Trust to come up with several ideas before he gets the U.S. into another mess by going with his first instincts”
Or perhaps if you actualy did some homework on the subject, you would find out he already has.
As stated in the January 24, 2005 issue of Time:
‘As Moore learned when he visited Austin, Bush’s fascination with Social Security began before he got to Washington. As Governor, his advisers say, he was struck by the experiences of local governments in places like Galveston County that had allowed their employees to opt out of government retirement plans and invest the proceeds in private funds – yielding legends of courthouse janitors retiring with $750,000 nest eggs. As Bush planned his first presidential campaign, he brought in experts to brief him on how privatization had worked in places like chile, and even Sweden – surely one of the rare instances of a Republican taking the lead from a country known for a near socialist welfare system.'”
Wade Tripp,
“Why I dont like private accounts? Because I see it as a way of people with large salaries getting larger ones because of inside knowledge, special buying deals such as with the varous mutual funds…Those who don’t have the money or connections will not get as big a returnand lose money whe the scandels hit.”
First, it’s scandals. Second, did it ever dawn on you that those with “connections” and the like would rather put their money in higher-risk, higher rate of return stocks than Bush is offering under his plan. Ever think they might see Socal security as small potatoes compared to IRAs, 401ks, and other retirement plans avilable to them?
J. Alexander,
“I really do not believe that there is an urgent Social security problem. Nevertheless, if you do believe one exists, why not raise the cap on taxing social security from $90,000 to $150,000 a year.”
Because instead of soaking the rich, Bush wants the average worker to be able to create their own wealth.
However, let me ask you this, instead of “raising the cap”, why not means test and stop paying out benefits to those who do not need them? That I would be for. Wholeheartedly.
“However, let me ask you this, instead of “raising the cap”, why not means test and stop paying out benefits to those who do not need them? That I would be for. Wholeheartedly.”
Depending on where they set the means, I agree.
Because instead of soaking the rich,
Ahh, and that’s the center of the matter, isn’t it?
And people wonder why the middle class is disappearing… heaven forbid the rich pay their fair share.
Jerome, since it looks like one of my comments garnered a “go do your homework” comment from you, I’ll just rebound that right back atchya and let you know that Social Security benefits include death benefits for a spouse and other suriving family. So, while it may indeed be true that if you die at age 60, you get nothing, but your wife, kids, or even your parents could collect your SS benefit.
Bush’s plan apparantly (despite his claim that his private account idea is transferable to other family members) would require your account to grow to a very, very large sum, more than most people will probably reach, and only that portion above that high level will be transferable. The rest just goes “poof” if you die before you are eligible to claim it.
As to Bush studying the issue before making this claim, I knew full well his “fascination” with the program, and that he’d been briefed on a few systems. But an executive briefing is just scratching the surface of the issues. So Chile has a successfuls system? So what? Chile has about 16 million people, or 6% of the population of the US. What works for them may not and probably will not work on a much larger scale. The additional administration costs alone might make an identicle program unsustainable. I doubt that any executive briefing would include such detail. Especially because Bush has a history of not wanting to hear that his plans won’t work.
US agencies are bound by law to conduct extensive research on their actions before they take them, in order to understand the impacts and benefits of those actions, and to evaluate alternatives to the action they want to take. The President’s office is exempt from any such requirement, and it’s pretty clear to anyone who’s looked at Bush’s plan that he’s not really studied the problem enough.
Cutting off benefits based on a financial needs test? Sounds good, but once you do that, doesn’t SS become more of a welfare program than it is today? Today, you have to pay in to get benefits. If we cut some off from those benefits, then it just becomes a tax that the most wealthy receive no direct benefit from.
Maybe if we made the voluntary? Allow anyone the opportunity to put their claim back into the fund.
I’ve yet to see a Social Security type plan that can be viewed universally as fair. Either the middle class bears a greater proportional burden, or the upper class pay a greater total share, or someone’s benefits have to be reduced.
Face, people that make more money pay more taxes. They SHOULD. That’s how taxes work, unless someone can come up with a legitimate reason for a flat tax. I fail to understand why there’s a cap on the Social Security tax. What other taxes are capped? And why the assumption that paying more taxes means you should get more benefits? Are those that make $50 million a year (and thus paying a lot more income tax than those of us making under $100K a year) entitled to better roads, shorter lines, quicker responses from government? Maybe in some cases they *do* get better service, but *should* they?
Waaay up there, someone said:
“It struck me that more people might have to be selling old valuables to keep it going themselves if Social Security isn’t secure anymore.”
I’m curious as to what’s wrong with this? Why shouldn’t they sell their stuff to survive?
I’m 41, just got completely out of debt (much of it from catastrophies). I bought my first home several years ago, financed college, etc. etc.
A 21 year old friend of mine has just graduated college that he paid out of pocket for. He is getting married, paying out of pocket for it, and buying a house with 50% down. His parents are poor. He has done this because 15 years ago, a church mentor told him about finances and he started saving immediately (10% to the church; 60% to savings; 30% for spending). When he first started, it was pennies a week. He followed this formula for the rest of his childhood, flipping the savings and spending ratio when he moved out on his own. This kid is finacially set, all from barely better than minimum wage jobs.
He made good financial decisions and I made bad ones up until 15 year ago (took me that long to dig out). It can be done but most of us refuse to try.
Some Social Security oddities:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “put away,” you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U. S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Okay, the SS stuff is from an e-mail, but still intresting…
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=896
February 2, 1998 — “We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system.”
February 9, 1998 — “every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements … are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.”
February 9, 1998 — “This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation. … That would be unconscionable, especially since, if you move now, we can do less and have a bigger impact…”
April 7, 1998 — “Today the system is sound, but the demographic crisis looming is clear.”
April 7, 1998 — “All these trends will impose heavy strains on the system. Let’s look at the next chart here. You can see that in 1960, which wasn’t so long ago, there were over five people working for every person drawing Social Security. In 1997, last year, there were over three people –3.3 people — working for every person drawing. But by 2030, because of the increasing average age, if present birthrates and immigration rates and retirement rates continue, there will be only two people working for every person drawing Social Security.”
April 7, 1998 — “If we act now, we can ensure strong retirement benefits for the baby boom generation without placing an undue burden on our children and grandchildren. And we can do it, if we act now, with changes that will be far simpler and easier than if we wait until the problem is closer at hand.”
October 24, 1998 — “Unfortunately, some in Congress already may be backing away from this historic opportunity. Just last week, the Senate Majority Leader said he may not be willing to join me in our efforts to save Social Security. That would be a grave mistake. As with so many other long-term challenges, if we act now, it will be far, far easier to resolve the problem than if we wait until a crisis is close at hand. I believe we must save Social Security and do it next year.”
February 17, 1999 — “the evident financial crisis which will be imposed on Social Security when the baby boomers retire”
March 12, 1999 — “Now, if we do what I’m suggesting, not only can we deal with the financial crisis in Social Security and Medicare…”
August 6, 1998 — “I don’t want us to run right out and spend [the surplus] before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire.”
And what GOP bastid said all those phonie-baloney garbage about SS back then? Ummmm, oops, sorry, why, that was the King of Liberal Ratfinks, President Bill Clinton. Why, if it wasn’t for the Great Liberal Memory Hole Dump and the fact you are almost out of power, you’d people almost be dangerous…
Carl:
>Why, if it wasn’t for the Great Liberal Memory Hole Dump and the fact you are almost out of power, you’d people almost be dangerous…
I am constantly amused by the generalizing of individuals into easy-to-label groups, whether it be from “conservatives” or “liberals” here. Why is it commonplace to throw everyone into one side or the other, rather than respond to 1 individuals statements and beliefs as they are shared.
My immediate inner response after reading the last post was “What does what Clinton said 6 years ago have to do with my observations of what Bush is currently doing?”
This blog didn’t exist back then for the open discourse to take place, but it is interesting to consider how the threads would look had it been.
I think Robbnn demonstrates the failing we have as a society: We’ve neglected to teach our next generations how to manage finances. And in many cases, our older generations don’t know how to, either. Our government isn’t setting a good example, running a huge deficit and floating an even bigger debt.
So it should be no surprise that many in our society live like that, either through choice, laziness, or as a result of unfortunate circumstances.
So, do we want to trash one our safety nets, and let people fend for themselves? I tend to think that doing so would cost more in the long run, that the very, very rich are better off keeping the middle and lower classes solvent than seeing increasing numbers of financially devastated people appearing.
And in the meantime, let’s get more education out there like Robbnn’s friend received.
“This blog didn’t exist back then for the open discourse to take place, but it is interesting to consider how the threads would look had it been.”
Well, speaking for myself, I would have been posting threads complaining about Clinton, and conservatives would likely have been complaining about Clinton. As opposed to now, when I complain about Bush and conservatives complain about Clinton.
Jerome:
In answering your earier question, I want to save Social Security rather than convert it to a welfare institution. Social Security could probably be saved (if it was truly in danger) by raising the cap from $90,000 to $120,000. This does not tamper with the system, just strengthens it.
This does not tamper with the system, just strengthens it.
Yeah, but you don’t actually expect the upper class to pay their share of this system, right?
I mean, you might never know if they too might still need SS as well when they get old.
Welp, I just want to know, why was it the Dim’s “duty” to fix SS back then (and they apparently did nothing) and now…. GWB is some kind of fiend for proposing fixing it…. like the Dims proposed back in the ’90s? Could it just be ’cause it’s GWB’s idea and automatically “evil” and must be opposed? Sounds logical to me…