My Theory On Why Bush wants to Ruin Social Security
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 17:07
VIEWED: 13307
PAGE 7 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"So now the surplus has been spent frivolously and SS is in a terrible spot. They need much more money to support the baby boomers as they retire and will either go bankrupt or there needs to be major changes now."
Your characterization of the problem, while plausible, is inaccurate. The money has NOT been spent... or have you not read the previous posts of the Social Security web page? They DON'T need "much more" money and they DON'T need "major changes".
Social Security, like all responsible retirement systems, makes three projections: High income, low income, and one in the middle. Only the LOWEST INCOME projection shows there is a problem, and it only requires modest adjustments to fix. It's not a "left-wing" take on the situation- even outside annuity companies like TIAA say the same thing. Just to show how biased the Administration is being, this is the ONLY case in which they use the most conservative projection. When it comes to the budget deficit, for example, they use the rosiest scenarios.
The information coming out of the WHite House is clearly biased by all reasonable and responsible accounts. By all responsible calculations, the WHite House "fix" will make the Social Security problems worse, not better- even the White House admits that. So why do we keep hacking around with what Bush says? The guy's a liar, plain and simple. This is another WMD- style phony crisis.
GET OUT YOUR UMBRELLAS- IT'S RAINING BULLSHIT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
My comments had nothing to do with the Bush administration. Those were things that I learned in my Economics courses in college. It's possible that my professors had some hidden political agenda, but I doubt it.
If it were my personal view, I would say get rid of social security altogether. I don't even mind losing everything I've invested in the system so far. From this point forward I would rather invest that money myself for my own retirement. I'm all for people dealing with the consequences of their actions. If you invest wisely, money for you. If you don't invest, enjoy the street corner you'll be living on when you retire.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So your REAL agenda is to get rid of Social Security? Funny, but I already knew that.
PS- I'm sure you grossly misquoted your economics professor(s). In fact, if you would give me his/her/their name(s) I will be happy to contact them for their real opinion, and I will post it here on the board.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So your REAL agenda is to get rid of Social Security? Funny, but I already knew that.
PS- I'm sure you grossly misquoted your economics professor(s). In fact, if you would give me his/her/their name(s) I will be happy to contact them for their real opinion, and I will post it here on the board.
Knock yourself out. The only one I can remember off the top of my head though is Kelly Blanchard and don't hold me on the spelling. The others were much funkier names that I can't remember at all. Enjoy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What college or university?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AuraRaptor:
Your right, the first beneficiaries of Social Security didn't contribute. But, really, how lucky were they? Most of them had been financially crippled by the Great Depression.
The reason support Social Security is because I believe that the safety net it provides serves the greater good. One might argue that insurance is not the Government’s responsibility but I would point out that one of the reasons for our government listed in the preamble of the constitution for is to "promote the general welfare."
A big complaint about Social Security is that contributors get a lousy return on their investment. Galveston, Texas is presented as an example of a better investment strategy. Maybe there's room for compromise here. What if the Social Security remained a single fund but invested in annuities similar to Galveston. Of course the government might not go for it because it would lose a ready lender.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What college or university?
Purdue
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And is your real agenda to get rid of Social Security, not to "save" it???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My take on this -
Bush has always wanted to get rid of SS as an idée-fixe. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's 'working' economically. Just look at the Federal deficit - the budget is not 'working' economically in a major way and he's in no hurry to fix it. And the speed and coordination of his efforts make it obvious this was the plan all along. (Which he conveniently forgot to detail during his campaign.)
But I think it wouldn't have gotten anywhere if Rove and Cheney weren't also on board.
And I think what they see is an opportunity to 'starve the beast'. SS investments are in effect loaning the Federal government money. Without that income, the beast dies faster.
It's not economic at all, it's ideological.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
AuraRaptor:
I would point out that one of the reasons for our government listed in the preamble of the constitution for is to "promote the general welfare."
I know for a fact that the founding fathers didn't intend for the line to mean what you presume it means. Not even remotely.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME