Bush's plan reduces benefits and nor does it help with the program's solvency, PLUS adds trillions to the national debt. But I'm sure you're aware of that.
So again, why is he doing it?
Originally posted by: Genx87
Bush's plan reduces benefits and nor does it help with the program's solvency, PLUS adds trillions to the national debt. But I'm sure you're aware of that.
So again, why is he doing it?
I still havent seen proof of this. Actually just listening to his plan I dont see how it will add trillions.
A. It is voluntary, this means not everybody will do it.
B. If they decide to do it they will continue to tax them at the current 12.6% rate, but allow the person to take 4% of their income and put it in a federal run fund. They will forfeit future rights to any SS draws or at least a reduced draw and leaves the govt with 8.6% of their income scott free to spend.
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush questions worth of Social Security trust fund
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11318132.htmWASHINGTON - Using a government filing cabinet as a prop, President Bush on Tuesday played to fears that the Social Security Trust Fund is little more than a stack of worthless IOUs.
But if the IOUs are worthless, so is the "full faith and credit" of the federal government, independent financial analysts said. The reality is a little more complicated than Bush acknowledged, and it goes to the heart of the debate over Social Security's future.
Experts say both sides in the debate over Social Security mischaracterize the trust fund's worth to make the case that the retirement system is essentially sound, as many Democrats contend, or that it's on the verge of crisis, which is Bush's message.
"I don't like the Democrats saying everything is fine any more than I like the Republicans saying, `House on fire! House on fire!' The truth is somewhere in the middle," said Timothy Smeeding, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
Bush visited the Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va., on Tuesday to highlight the fact that there's no actual cash in the trust fund, even though Social Security has piled up a $1.7 trillion surplus since it was created in the late 1930s. Payroll taxes collected from workers have exceeded benefits paid to retirees every year since 1984.
Instead of socking the surplus away, the government spent it on other programs and promised to repay it later, with interest. The IOUs are in the form of special-issue Treasury bonds that are stored in an off-white, four-drawer filing cabinet in West Virginia.
"There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay," Bush said after inspecting the storage site. "Imagine - the retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet."
FDR repeatedly misrepresented Social Security as legitimate insurance. "Get these facts straight," he said. "The Act provides for two kinds of insurance for the worker. For that insurance both the employer and the worker pay premiums-just as you pay premiums on any other insurance policy. Those premiums are collected in the form of taxes. The first kind of insurance covers old age. Here the employer contributes one dollar in premium for every dollar of premium contributed by the worker; but both dollars are held by the government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age." More candidly, he was quoted as saying: "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions.... With those taxes in place, no damn politician can every scrap my social security program."
Originally posted by: Xede
Disclaimer: none of the following is about Treasury notes. I'm talking only about the SS "debt" or "IOUs" that are referenced in the original post.
Most of you do not understand the government's SS obligation. It is not at all the same as the national debt; it's not a debt at all. Just because you pay in does not give you any legal guarantee whatsoever that you will get money out.
Chapter 13 of FDR's Folly gives some insight about what social security actually is:
FDR repeatedly misrepresented Social Security as legitimate insurance. "Get these facts straight," he said. "The Act provides for two kinds of insurance for the worker. For that insurance both the employer and the worker pay premiums-just as you pay premiums on any other insurance policy. Those premiums are collected in the form of taxes. The first kind of insurance covers old age. Here the employer contributes one dollar in premium for every dollar of premium contributed by the worker; but both dollars are held by the government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age." More candidly, he was quoted as saying: "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions.... With those taxes in place, no damn politician can every scrap my social security program."
(Although he described it in that quote as a legal right, no such right exists.)
This is why social security was designed to be funded by specific payroll deductions, rather than just paid for out of the general pool of taxes. It creates a sense of entitlement in people's minds that, once started, makes it politically invulnerable. However, just because you have a line item deduction for SS in your paychecks and FEEL a sense of entitlement to receive future benefits, doesn't mean you're legally entitled to anything at all. SS payouts are not the same as debt owed to a creditor.
Will not help with the solvency of SS: BUSH ADMITS IT!
Adding trillions to the debt: BOTH CHENEY AND BUSH ADMIT IT!
Originally posted by: Genx87
Will not help with the solvency of SS: BUSH ADMITS IT!
Adding trillions to the debt: BOTH CHENEY AND BUSH ADMIT IT!
You are like a child.
Can you think for yourself? The long term ramifications of private accounts can and will make the system solvent. Ask yourself this.
If they dont touch the system will it ever be solvent again?
Now what happens if everybody has a private account that doesnt allow the congress to raid it and the only people allowed to touch it are the account owners. Will that be solvent?
Originally posted by: Genx87
What an original comeback.
I am the idiot but you cant even answer my question.
Originally posted by: conjur
14th AmendmentSection. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Hmm...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050310-14.htmlThis is a pay-as-you-go system. Money goes in and money goes out. There's no such thing, by the way, as a Social Security trust. Some people probably think that the government has taken your payroll taxes and held it for you and then when you retire, they give it back to you. That's not what happens. (Laughter.) The government takes your money and spends it on other things and puts an IOU, a piece of paper, on your behalf, which may be worth something, and it may not be worth something.
Did the President just question the validity of the debt? Sure sounds like it to me.
Originally posted by: Genx87
A tweak? How much will that 73% cost in 2042 per year out of the tax stream?
Remember the fake trust fund is used up by then so the way they pay for system is directly from tax revenues.
Originally posted by: Genx87
A tweak? How much will that 73% cost in 2042 per year out of the tax stream?
Remember the fake trust fund is used up by then so the way they pay for system is directly from tax revenues.
I saw that a small percentage of the Bush tax break to the wealthiest people in this country, spread over the next 50 years and put into the system, would solve the problem completely.
Edit: That tax break was irresponsible to begin with.
Originally posted by: Genx87
I saw that a small percentage of the Bush tax break to the wealthiest people in this country, spread over the next 50 years and put into the system, would solve the problem completely.
Edit: That tax break was irresponsible to begin with.
I think you were reading the memo off the AARP page and taking it a bit serious.
Actually, I haven't read it, but heard a Congressman state it on Meet the Press.
And yes, AARP is soooo liberal. They're so liberal, they supported Bush's Medicare Prescription plan.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Actually, I haven't read it, but heard a Congressman state it on Meet the Press.
lol
And yes, AARP is soooo liberal. They're so liberal, they supported Bush's Medicare Prescription plan.
Doesnt have to be liberal to be idiotic. Medicare plan is a given considering their demographic. I would say AARP is more or less for anything that allows their membership to rape the taxpayer for all they are worth.
SS + medicare
Two programs that just rape the taxpayers and AARP supports them.
Originally posted by: Vic
Paying back Merril Lynch for its contributions to his campaign.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Bush's plan reduces benefits and nor does it help with the program's solvency, PLUS adds trillions to the national debt. But I'm sure you're aware of that.
So again, why is he doing it?
Where did I claim he did? The thread title is a question. I also only stated he sounds like he is and offered up what I consider evidence.Originally posted by: tss4
Did you notice that your article didn't make the ridiculous claim that the president violated teh constitution? That's because they bothered to learn what validity of the public debt means before writing their story. Notice it also acknowledged the SS surplus was spent and that the democrats are just as guilty of misprepresenting the state of SS.Originally posted by: conjur
Bush questions worth of Social Security trust fund
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11318132.htmWASHINGTON - Using a government filing cabinet as a prop, President Bush on Tuesday played to fears that the Social Security Trust Fund is little more than a stack of worthless IOUs.
But if the IOUs are worthless, so is the "full faith and credit" of the federal government, independent financial analysts said. The reality is a little more complicated than Bush acknowledged, and it goes to the heart of the debate over Social Security's future.
Experts say both sides in the debate over Social Security mischaracterize the trust fund's worth to make the case that the retirement system is essentially sound, as many Democrats contend, or that it's on the verge of crisis, which is Bush's message.
"I don't like the Democrats saying everything is fine any more than I like the Republicans saying, `House on fire! House on fire!' The truth is somewhere in the middle," said Timothy Smeeding, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
Bush visited the Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va., on Tuesday to highlight the fact that there's no actual cash in the trust fund, even though Social Security has piled up a $1.7 trillion surplus since it was created in the late 1930s. Payroll taxes collected from workers have exceeded benefits paid to retirees every year since 1984.
Instead of socking the surplus away, the government spent it on other programs and promised to repay it later, with interest. The IOUs are in the form of special-issue Treasury bonds that are stored in an off-white, four-drawer filing cabinet in West Virginia.
"There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay," Bush said after inspecting the storage site. "Imagine - the retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet."
Because the - all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those - changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be - or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the - like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate - the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those - if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.
Originally posted by: conjur
Where did I claim he did? The thread title is a question. I also only stated he sounds like he is and offered up what I consider evidence.
You don't understand what offering up something for discussion is? Sure, I'm arguing for it but I'm not explicitly stating he did and should be impeached.Originally posted by: tss4
now you sound dumb. You don't "claim he did" yet you "state he sounds like he is and offered up evidence." They're the same thing.Originally posted by: conjur
Where did I claim he did? The thread title is a question. I also only stated he sounds like he is and offered up what I consider evidence.
And hiding behind the excuse of "I only asked a question" is the sign of a Propagandist (right or left). Bush's croonies have used that one before and I recall you getting pissed about it then. (A lot of people only asked the "question" about Kerry's service in vietnam)