| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
07 Nov 2004 07:56:25 AM |
| Object: |
The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security |
From The New York Times, 11/7/04:
http://nytimes.com/2004/11/07/business/yourmoney/07view.html
By DANIEL ALTMAN
PRESIDENT BUSH began his first term with projections for $5.6 trillion
in budget surpluses.
Though he will start his second term facing at least $2.3 trillion in
deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office, his
tax-cutting ambitions are even greater.
Here are some of the initiatives that he's likely to push, and the
unanswered questions that go with them.
Privatization of Social Security President Bush said he wants to give
workers an opportunity to divert part of their payroll taxes to
individual investment accounts, in the hope that the financial markets
would pay higher returns than the existing Social Security system.
That money would otherwise have gone to pay benefits for current
retirees, however.
How would the administration close the gap?
Also, who would choose where workers could put their money?
Would they have been able to invest in Enron?
What about investing abroad?
And finally, what would happen if financial markets crashed?
In Chile, whose private pension system has been cited as a model by
President Bush, some retirees saw their benefits drop by 7 percent in
2001.
__________________________________________________________
The Repugs have wanted to kill Social Security since its inception by
FDR. Having the word "Social" in it must really gall them.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security |
07 Nov 2004 08:27:18 AM |
|
|
Subject: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security
From: Harry Hope
Date: 11/7/2004 8:56 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <aaaso0tsa79p2jhdb8ktlfk28up66o3868@4ax.com>
From The New York Times, 11/7/04:
http://nytimes.com/2004/11/07/business/yourmoney/07view.html
By DANIEL ALTMAN
PRESIDENT BUSH began his first term with projections for $5.6 trillion
in budget surpluses.
The republicans fixed social security 20 years ago. That project was chaired
by Alan Greenspan. The republican congress accepted the committee lead by Alan
Greenspan recommendations and made them law. Alan Greenspan and others claimed
that they fixed social security for 75 years. They double the FICA tax on
working Americans.
The republican congress then looted the FICA tax and used it for pork projects.
There should be no discussion of social security until Congress repays the
money that they looted.
There should be no discussion of social secuirty till congress is forced to be
part of social security.
There should be no discussion of social security till there is a new head of
the federal reserve. It is clear that Alan Greenspan was a liar on the matter
or he kept silent for 20 years without putting presssor on the congress not to
loot the social security funds.
There should bge no discussion on social security till the rules of medicare
which allows an immigrate to collect medicare but denies benefits to American
is they do not have 40 quarters of payment. It should be a minimum of 40
quarters of payments into the system to collect medicare for all.
Be scared. Be very scared. The thieves who doubled your fica tax 20 years ago
are at it again. In many cases it is the very same people who gave you the
contract with American which had term limits but they would not accept that
concept.
Be scared. You will live on dog food if you are not.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
| User: "john grove" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security |
23 Nov 2004 04:23:30 PM |
|
|
The republicans fixed social security 20 years ago. That project was chaired
by Alan Greenspan. The republican congress accepted the committee lead by Alan
Greenspan recommendations and made them law. Alan Greenspan and others claimed
that they fixed social security for 75 years. They double the FICA tax on
working Americans.
The republican congress then looted the FICA tax and used it for pork projects.
There should be no discussion of social security until Congress repays the
money that they looted.
The SS burden should drop, with the long term effects of cell phone brain
broil, and liver damage from woody pills.
The military better buy all their toys now, and get ready for a $100 Billion
budget instead of $422 B, boomer retirees are gonna get paid, one way or
another.
JG
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dez Akin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security |
09 Nov 2004 07:08:09 PM |
|
|
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<aaaso0tsa79p2jhdb8ktlfk28up66o3868@4ax.com>...
From The New York Times, 11/7/04:
http://nytimes.com/2004/11/07/business/yourmoney/07view.html
By DANIEL ALTMAN
PRESIDENT BUSH began his first term with projections for $5.6 trillion
in budget surpluses.
Though he will start his second term facing at least $2.3 trillion in
deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office, his
tax-cutting ambitions are even greater.
Here are some of the initiatives that he's likely to push, and the
unanswered questions that go with them.
Privatization of Social Security President Bush said he wants to give
workers an opportunity to divert part of their payroll taxes to
individual investment accounts, in the hope that the financial markets
would pay higher returns than the existing Social Security system.
That money would otherwise have gone to pay benefits for current
retirees, however.
How would the administration close the gap?
Massive deficit spending probably. I suppose its not too bad, you can
just debauch the currency.
The problem here is demographic... Either you reduce benifits (raise
the retirement age, etcetera) or you raise taxes to the point where
the economy stops moving, and everyone takes a cut anyways...
Really Harry, you had best hope that this is the thing that Bush trys
to spend his 'political capital' on rather than his moralizing social
engineering projects.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security |
07 Nov 2004 12:30:50 PM |
|
|
Harry Hope wrote:
From The New York Times, 11/7/04:
http://nytimes.com/2004/11/07/business/yourmoney/07view.html
By DANIEL ALTMAN
PRESIDENT BUSH began his first term with projections for $5.6 trillion
in budget surpluses.
Though he will start his second term facing at least $2.3 trillion in
deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office, his
tax-cutting ambitions are even greater.
Here are some of the initiatives that he's likely to push, and the
unanswered questions that go with them.
Privatization of Social Security President Bush said he wants to give
workers an opportunity to divert part of their payroll taxes to
individual investment accounts, in the hope that the financial markets
would pay higher returns than the existing Social Security system.
That money would otherwise have gone to pay benefits for current
retirees, however.
How would the administration close the gap?
Also, who would choose where workers could put their money?
Would they have been able to invest in Enron?
What about investing abroad?
And finally, what would happen if financial markets crashed?
Absolutely nothing. A financial crash would still show substantial gains
for someone has held the assets for 20 years. A CRASH DOES NOT MEAN
MONEY LOST. Money is not gained or lost until the asset is sold. If I
invest tomorrow and the market crash no big deal I will sell my assets
for 20 years. By that time the crash is more than made up for. Add
dividends reinvestment and price growth and I have done well. In fact a
crash is what you want to happen early in your investment. THAT IS WHEN
YOU INVEST MORE!!! You buy the stocks on the cheap and get EVEN BIGGER
returns 30 years from now.
Almost any stock portfolio that is set up by anyone who is half comptent
will GAIN MONEY OVER THE LONG RUN. The returns would be much more than
SS. The money a person would be able to draw off their private account
will far exceed SS payments. They will get better returns have more
assets and therefore get paid more money in retirement. SS is a low
return asset. Think about it, the percentage of the income you pay in SS
tax now is MUCH HIGHER than the percentage of your income you recieve
back adjusted for inflation. ANYONE WITH ANY SENSE WHO HAD THE CHOICE TO
INVEST IN SS OR STOCKS WOULD GO WITH STOCKS. SS is a negative return.
Stocks over the long run are positive. They have an average return of 7%
a year. You may lose 7% a year paying into SS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security |
07 Nov 2004 12:48:42 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security
From: Igor
Date: 11/7/2004 1:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:
Absolutely nothing. A financial crash would still show substantial gains
for someone has held the assets for 20 years. A CRASH DOES NOT MEAN
MONEY LOST.
Depends on the asset. Ask the people of enron, kmart if they lost money.
Money is not gained or lost until the asset is sold.
Not true.
If I
invest tomorrow and the market crash no big deal I will sell my assets
for 20 years. By that time the crash is more than made up for.
Depends. Enron and Kmart will never be made up. Both lost money for the 401 of
its employees pulss all the stockholders.
Almost any stock portfolio that is set up by anyone who is half comptent
will GAIN MONEY OVER THE LONG RUN
Not true. Most stocks will not return the lost money value.
NEY OVER THE LONG RUN. The returns would be much more than
SS.
Not true.
ANYONE WITH ANY SENSE WHO HAD THE CHOICE TO
INVEST IN SS OR STOCKS WOULD GO WITH STOCKS
Not true. I would rather have gold coins.
They have an average return of 7%
a year.
Is that good? Inflation was often well over 7 percent.
You may lose 7% a year paying into SS.
You may lose anything put in a private account.
Social Security was fixed by the republicans 20 years ago. They pledge that it
was fixed for 75 years. Why should we trust them this time?
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Godzilla Pimp" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security |
07 Nov 2004 09:05:33 AM |
|
|
If you think Mexicans and other 3rd world people are going to pay to take
care of old white people you are sadly mistaken. They are going to rob the
old farts.
White people need a privatized SS system in which the funds are kept off
shore so that the coming Latrino majority will not be able to loot them.
GP
.
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security |
07 Nov 2004 10:00:10 AM |
|
|
Subject: Re: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security
From: "Godzilla Pimp"
Date: 11/7/2004 10:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <1Rqjd.7510$Gm6.2010@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
If you think Mexicans and other 3rd world people are going to pay to take
care of old white people you are sadly mistaken. They are going to rob the
old farts
They already do. They are sending as many 65 years old to the United States
because they can collect medicare even without puting in any money. The
government is allowing large numbers to come under the unitification of family
rules of immigration. Americans without 40 quarters of payment into FICA
cannot collect but legal immigrants are eligible on the first day without any
requirement to pay into the system.
..
White people need a privatized SS system in which the funds are kept off
shore so that the coming Latrino majority will not be able to loot them.
Nay. Priviatized SS will only make welfare for millions. Too many people have
paid into social security and it is all that they have.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bush threat to destroy our Social Security |
08 Nov 2004 12:50:03 AM |
|
|
Godzilla Pimp wrote:
If you think Mexicans and other 3rd world people are going to pay to take
care of old white people you are sadly mistaken. They are going to rob the
old farts.
White people need a privatized SS system in which the funds are kept off
shore so that the coming Latrino majority will not be able to loot them.
GP
The GOP, ugly old white guys are the guys robbing SS today.
The ***** monkies keep rewarding them for it by voting for the
theives again and again and again.
I hope when it collapses, all the far right ***** monkies hurt by this are
HURT BAD!
I want to hear you ***** monkies scream and scream and scream in
horrified futility!
All you rednecked morons in Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Utah,
Kansas, Oklahoma, the red states.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
