Bush on Social Security: Sharing is BAD!

[Plaid Adder]

I'm glad he doesn't give press conferences very often. I can't take much more o' this.

Oh my GOD, it is PAINFUL! The disconnect between the questions and the answers, the rambling, the leaping from talking point to talking point as if they are ice floes giving him temporary shelter from the black and turbulent waters of ignorance and incoherence, the first-grader vocabulary, and the BULLSHIT! Just the BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!!

Social Security, for instance. It's not fair! It's not fair because if you are paying into it and then you die before you're 62 your spouse can't inherit both your benefits and her benefits! The money you paid in just DISAPPEARS!

No, it doesn't disappear, asshole. What happens is that it goes into the common pot out of which other people are drawing their benefits. In other words, it gets SHARED. That is the whole principle of Social Security: that people share their money. We are putting in money now from our payroll taxes; well, that money is not going to 'come back' to us when we retire. That money is paying for peoples' benefits right now. Our benefits will be paid by the taxes of the people who are working when we retire. And so on. Everyone pays into the kitty and the kitty pays out to everyone. And that is how, if you hit retirement age but you have blown your whole wad on the ponies or single malt scotch or Enron or college tuition for your kids, you can still survive--because even though 'your' money has gone up in smoke, the kitty into which everyone has been paying will still take care of you. That's what a safety net is.

The private account thing is based on the same logic: I don't want my money paying for some other bozo's benefits! I want MY money to pay for MY benefits! Mine mine mine all mine! And somehow he never ends up explaining that if, for instance, I decided right now to invest some of my social security taxes in my voluntary stock market account, that would mean that the pool of money available for people who are retired *right now* would decrease by that amount. And if everyone was doing it, then the pool would decrease significantly. OK, so when we fire up these 'private accounts,' basically we are refusing to play along and put into the kitty. Nevertheless, the number of people drawing from the kitty does not change. So how does this help make the system solvent?

It doesn't. That's not the point. The point is: You get to keep YOUR MONEY! Fuck everyone who's retired right now! Why should THEY get YOUR MONEY?

If you take what Bush said about the unfairness of Social Security at face value, it boils down to this: Sharing is bad. And of course, that is why they hate Social Security, isn't it, because it's sharing. Sharing...you know, it's kind of one of them Communist things.

@#$!,

The Plaid Adder

[NAO]

1. I pay taxes for police protection...if I don't get robbed, it's not fair!

Think about it: when there is a burglar in your home and you call the Police, do they ask you how much you make? If you make too much, do they tell you that you do not qualify for state-funded law enforcement services and that you must call a private firm and self-pay? Of course not. Everyone needs police protection and it is provided to everyone regardless of income, no questions asked.

Everyone strongly supports police and fire protection because everyone needs them and they are there for everyone. Really, they are "Social Law Enforcement" and "Social Fire Protection".

Why shouldn't Health Care and Social Security be the same way?

If you have a burglar in your home, the police come, no questions asked. But if you have a bacteria or a cancer in your body...Do you have insurance? If not, do you make little enough to qualify for state-funded services?

Means testing fuels resentment toward the poor for being 'freeloaders' and ends up destroying support for things we ALL need. Like health care. And social security.

I seriously wonder if *'s gibbering about "more benefits for the poorest" is not meant to make Social Security seem like a "handout to freeloaders" to fuel resentment at people who do not take "personal responsibility".

[AuntiBush]

6. You want to know what it's all about..., really!

FDR. Plain and simple.

FDR took his granddaddy out! Prescott Bush, president of the World Bank, making huge fortune w/German Nazi's. Bush family went broke for awhile, till the other $$ bailed them out. There's more.

Note: FDR knew to SEPERATE Social Security from entire system. It's a sperate entity, not part of the fiscial BS. For hours, the Dem's have been on C-Span, right now on C-Span 2 trying to show Americans that Bush has been taking the Surplus for years, and this budget their fighting over will continue to take ALL of IT to the year 2010! That was over and over again since 6 pm EST.

Can't stress enough, especially for Freepers creeping 'bout: FDR was a Wall Street lawyer, prior to becoming President for 16 years straight. He knew what NOT to do w/Social Security. Think about it.

Neo-conservative think-tanks for years figuring out how to take back, pay back this country.

I truly believe they hate us. And you're right. He has the other half believing Social Security is WELFARE. Check out their rant sites.

[FreedomAngel82]

33. Exactly

FDR was a rich democrat who did a lot for the country and they're jealous and don't like it. The republicans have NEVER liked Social Security. They don't like any social programs whether it's social security or welfare. Someone just called in Malloy and is talking about this now. He said Bush said in 1978 he was saying then in ten years it would go bankrupt and that would've been 1988. He's been trying to sell his plan since then and he still can't sell it. Talk about a moron.

[not fooled]

41. yeah, * heard it at his mommie's knee...

...* was raised on a diet of "FDR = evil commie", from his toxic parents and selfish greedy family.

One of *'s profs from Harvard Business School has given interviews saying, among other things (* was a terrible student, etc.) that in class * would state his hatred for Social Security, which he considered socialism (and therefore, of course, evil).

Bottom line: the chimp has a long-standing, pathological hatred of FDR, Social Security, and the New Deal. No doubt resulting from the BFEE's experiences w/FDR as stated by above poster.

So, *-loving 'Murkans: you are enabling the chimp to get revenge for his evil family.

[AuntiBush]

47. But it was OK for * Family to make $$$ in German Nazi's.

Yeah. That was "ok," though. And his mommy. Well, Mrs. * whom I swear looks worse than drag queens, came from a long line of very wealthy people on the same lines.

What they want is total Corporate control - World Control.

We're just minons in the way.

[johnaries]

20. Yep! And I don't have any children in school. Why should

I pay for other people's kids to go to school?

It would be funny, except I've actually heard people make that argument. Seriously.

[NAO]

25. I don't have any children in school...

but I do have a company that I hope I can keep running until I retire. I need an educated labor pool.

After I retire, I'm eventually going to need long term care. Hope those nursing home workers know how to read medication and care instructions.

[johnaries]

32. But, but, shouldn't we have more PERSONAL responsibility?

Shouldn't you be able to train those employees yourself and prescribe your own medicine?

Sorry, I've been in a week long email debate with a Libertarian friend at work who doesn't think we should pay any taxes or have any government sponsored programs, but let everyone be "personally responsible for their own actions".

After hammering him with "bad things happen to good people" and "not all poor people are drug addicts or lazy", he finally "bowed out" (his words were "I'm done") and just said he thought I was too pessimestic, when he looked around he didn't see the things I saw.

I guess I won the debate, but I wish I could have changed his mind. Maybe I planted enough of a seed that his opinion will change with time.

[FreedomAngel82]

34. Wouldn't that

take away programs such as rebuilding your roads, public education schools, garbage and the mail coming to your house for example?

[johnaries]

35. Not according to him! He thinks everyone would chip in freely

of their own accord. And Charities would be better off because everyone would donate freely, of their own accord - but only to "worthy" charities and not ones that promote laziness and drug addiction.

Not his words exactly, but I think a fair summarization.

That's why he thought I was a pessimist - because I didn't believe that many of the greedy rich would donate without tax incentives and because I believed that some people could be responsible and hard-working and still need help (despite the links I sent him about the "working poor" and bankruptcies due to medical bills).

I kept trying to explain the Interdependence of the Individual and Society, he thought it was Socialism.

[AuntiBush]

50. Don't forget your local Police, Fire Dept., Ambulance Folks

and the list goes on and on.

Now, think of this: How about everyone, and I mean everyone working for (i.e.) the Social Security systems all accross this country. Everyone of these programs has people working there.

They'll lose their jobs meaning... you know. More unemployment.

Like a domino affect, but worse.

[Frederik]

58. Yep

Roads only accessible to paying members etc. Ten competing garbage companies. That's their Utopia.

[outrage]

85. take away programs such as

rebuilding your roads, public education schools, garbage and the mail coming to your house for example?

No! Those would be privatized fostering competition between companies who would provide these services for a small fee that will be much less than you're paying now...

[NAO]

43. I used to be a Libertarian (even then I was pro-welfare for children)

Even in my most hardcore Libertarian days, I advocated Welfare for children, which made me a freak among Libertarians.

Other Libertarians would say, "hey, those poor people made their bed, they should have to lie in it". I would respond, "yes, they should, but their children should not have to. It was not due to their actions or choices that they were born to lazy freeloaders. It is immoral for a society to let children suffer needlessly, regardless of how worthless and lazy their parents are."

I actually got a few fellow Libertarians to think a bit - I could see the light come on in their heads, before it was snuffed out by their conscious ideology.

I do understand the Libertarian philosophy. I think they grossly underestimate the violence and forcefulness of economic coercion that is inherent in a free market class system. They overestimate the degree of freedom a person has in their overall financial situation within the system, and underestimate the degree to which the existing system works to keep wealthy people wealthy and poor people poor and in need of work - the work provided by wealthy people.

[AuntiBush]

52. By Nature, People "Believe" "It can't/won't happen to me!"

But, it can.

When you're not from a wealthy family, as 98% of us are not and crap happens in your life, you're screwed. What? Homeless maybe?

Your mate died suddenly.
You become disabled. God forbid you get really sick or have an accident.
Oh the list goes on and on...

Must be nice to be part of the "have more's," you know, his base.

What's that makes us?

[Bullshot]

95. These people believe the economy operates in a vacuum.

They think that social programs interfere with their hallowed "free market," and their hallowed "free market" would provide every service needed at the fairest price possible if you didn't have government programs distorting the marketplace. When you point out that the players in the "market" are constantly spending millions of dollars on government leaders and distorting the market and creating the need for social programs, they about have a head explosion. They can't believe that corporations play the government to their advantage.

[AuntiBush]

48. But, but... you better hope you NEVER loose your job.

and need to go back to school after you're unemployment runs out

[sunnystarr]

83. Sounds like a Libertarian friend of mine....

but when his wife had to have kidney stones removed he was calling me to ask about the free medical programs available in TN since he had no insurance. So typical of every one of them ... when it starts to hit their pocketbook they sing a different tune!

[retnavyliberal]

103. Well that is why he made No Child Left behind....

cause as he said last night, "...schools were passing students that could not read or right. They were illiterate in math!" I hurt myself laughing when I heard that one. Doesn't the word "illiterate" require that the topic must have something to do with, oh I don't know, words??? I know it is minor, and nit-picking, but really. Don't use words you don't understand.

[mcar]

74. I've heard lots of senior citizens make that argument

including my late FIL, who just liked to get people stirred up sometimes. I answered him, fine, you don't pay for education and we won't pay for medicare and social security.

He used that comeback on any of his senior friends who would make the same stupid statement.

[AuntiBush]

2. No, Plaid Adder. You're NOT ALONE! It is PAINFUL to watch.

I can't take much more of # either!

ATTENTION ALL: As a widow, I know... when my husband died tragically, unexpectedly, thanks to all the years he worked, sometime 7 days a week, 12-14 hours a day w/double-shifts included since the age of 14, as did I... when he died I got by from what he worked so hard paying in for many decades.

If he knew about this... a Viet Nam guy, he'd be past sick, as well.

You're not alone Plaid Adder. You're not alone w/not being able to take much more.

Luv your column. Don't leave us now. The whole time I watched that... sickening as it was, I knew not 1 question was unscripted.

Talk about painful!

[trogdor]

63. Heard the talking heads this morning....

...talking about how certain reporters got to ask follow-up questions, and our feckless leader was soooooooooooo comfortable answering them, as if this was some kind of evidence that feckless leader had grown soooooooooooo much over the past four and a half years as a statesman, so forceful and knowledgable, etc. :puke:

I mean, sure, if CERTAIN so and so's get to ask follow-ups that were agreed upon DAYS IN ADVANCE, and the little bushies get to spend half a week composing focus group tested answers for feckless leader to rattle off on cue, OF COURSE he'd be as comfortable as Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes. Morons.

[NewHampshireDem]

3. I've been paying car insurance for almost 20 years ...

I've NEVER had an accident. It's just not fair!

What happens to THAT money? I should be able to leave it to my children, my wife ... :cry:

[AuntiBush]

9. Good point.

[TahitiNut]

36. Egggfuckingzactly!

The reprehensible bullshit propaganda is enough to make me :puke:

[MissWaverly]

4. lunacy, sheer lunacy

I posted this on another thread

Rob Peter's social security to pay Paul's social security


sure that will work, how many people go to balance their checkbook
by robbing their neighbor's house.

[liberal N proud]

5. It's not fair, It's hard work...

This guy knows neither fairness or work


edit for brain fart

[AuntiBush]

7. It certainly isn't fair.

WTF does he know?

[ananda]

10. Bush looked..

.. positively pleased and thrilled every time he came up with a reason to dis the UN. That guy is so sick.

The plasticized mediawhores are having a feeding frenzy trying to pit Bush against the Dems. I could only watch them for one minute before realizing that there wasn't going to be any kind of objective reporting whatsoever.

The guys and gals at MSNBC have all gone over to the dark side, every last one. They look and act like Stepford reporters. I hope it isn't catching by watching, but I'm very afraid...

Sue

[Straight Shooter]

8. I don't drive very much. Why should I pay for upkeep of public roads?

It's not FAIR.

And I hate the Iraq War. Why should my taxes support that FUBAR fiasco? IT'S NOT FAIR!

[Plaid Adder]

12. Yeah! Why don't we have Iraq war private accounts?

Instead of paying into the military kitty, I want to invest that portion of my taxes in the stock market! Or...fucking...ANYWHERE ELSE BUT THIS STUPID WAR! After all, it's MY MONEY!

:argh:

The Plaid Adder

[Democracy White]

108. Yeah, you tell em..

Why can't we invest our money from the Iraq war into the stock market?

[trogdor]

65. Yeah, what you said.

I want my share of the $200 million in Iraq funding back. I got gypped!

[outrage]

86. I want my share of the $200 million in Iraq funding back. I got gypped!

I'll settle for the 9 mil? that went missing...

[Cash]

11. I understand what you're saying.

But, something like that is going to appeal to people on a personal level and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't.

So Mr. & Mrs. Smith work for 40 years each, and at age 60 Mr. Smith dies, and when Mrs. Smith retires she has to choose between receiving either the benefits she paid in or what he paid in instead of a combination of the total of both? I would venture to say that many married couples would prefer that, should one or the other die, their spouse receive not only their own due but also what was due them had they not died. On a personal level, if my spouse has to put up with me snoring and farting in the middle of the night and all the other crap I do for 40 years and I kill over, I feel like they should get what was coming to me on top of what they paid in. There is a sense where the American people can look and say that if someone paid in they should be able to get it back and direct it where they would want it to go. Just sayin' it's not completely unreasonable that people would consider that to be fair. How to address that issue is up for debate.

[MissWaverly]

14. George is after the lion share for his wars

this is equivalent to getting the people to buy into their big $100.00 tax cut, people were so grateful for that extra $100.00 meanwhile local and state taxes have soared, bills have gone up because federal tax on many items have increased i.e. phone bills, I now pay $10.00 in tax on my phone bill every month. George wants to convince the American people that payments have to be adjusted, so that he can continue to rake in the social security surplus to fund his perks to the rich and corporations.

[Cleita]

16. Not only that poor families are finding that programs

like Medicaid that they depend on are disappearing. Was it worth the tax cut? I don't think so.

[MissWaverly]

21. the genius of Bush

is that he gives 1 little crumb that gets people thinking that this might be a good idea, while he's yanking 80% of the money off the table, he is determined to bust the social security surplus the same way he bust the budget surplus when he took over the WH. By the surplus I mean that money that is coming in every day now that exceeds the daily payout, I pasted this from the Calpundit thread, link below to explain what I mean.

...You neglect the fact that the current Social Security 'surplus' is used as an enormous artificial support for all other kinds of spending. Bringing Social Security to a neutral expenditure in a vacuum doesn't tell us what happens to the billions of dollars that the government has spent per year of 'Social Security' money. That money either has to come from somewhere (increased taxes) or it has to be eliminated from expenditures (dramatic spending cuts).

The crisis is that Social Security has been adding cash to the budget and that it will soon be subtracting cash. If you 'fix' it so that it neither adds nor subtracts, you still haven't dealt with the fact that it used to add huge amounts of cash.

The only way to make up for the fact that this huge amounts of cash will no longer be coming into the government is to dramatically raise taxes to cover the difference, or to dramatically cut expenditures. This is called 'the Social Security' crisis because it is triggered by changes in the outlays and inputs of Social Security. Fixing the program to a neutral level of SS expenditures vs. SS taxes absolutely does not solve the crisis. "The numbers don't lie" only because you aren't looking at all of them.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at March 13, 2004 11:23 AM
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003484.html

[Cleita]

15. So why aren't they getting it under the Social Security act?

I got cut off half my husband's SS when he died, but my expenses aren't that much less; rent's the same; car payment's the same, etc.. So isn't this is what they should be doing to fix SS and not trying to destroy it altogether?

It isn't perfect, but priratization will not work. This is a social program, not a bank account. CHeeeze!

[Cash]

18. I'm not sure what will work that everyone will accept.

Personally, as a self-employed business person I've used the tax system to my advantage and have conducted my financial affairs under the assumption that SS won't be there at all, and if I do get anything back I'll just consider it to be icing on the cake.

[Cleita]

19. That's what my husband and I thought as we spent

all those years planning and saving as much as we could. However, the reality has been that SS and Medicare become increasingly important the more you age and now I find I am very dependent on them, especially since he died. Of course if you are ultra-rich and not just middle class comfortable then you won't have to worry.

[Cash]

22. Actually, it's just the way I am with things.

I plan for the worst and hope for the best. I feel very confident with what I have done thus far to prepare for my later years of life, but I am always re-evaluating and constantly looking for better ways. Let's just say I put more trust in myself to look out for me and my family than I do a bunch of politicians in DC.

Best to you.

[Cleita]

23. Good luck to you too.

I hope you remember this little exchange in the future, when you retire and you find yourself in a place, in your old age, where there is no going back, no time for second chances and at the mercy of a criminal bunch of robber barons who don't give a crap about the fact that you paid into this all your working life.

Incidentally, if I had to do it over again, I would have paid more attention to keeping SS and Medicare strong in the future, so that no neo-con corporations could get their thieving hands on it. You would be advised to do the same and fight them every inch of the way on this.

Also, there are IRAs and 401K programs to do your own planning in.

[Cash]

24. Thank You.

Yes, it seems someone always has their hands in my wallet wanting something for some reason. Such is life.

[Cleita]

26. One more word.

That person who has his hand in your wallet, better be the one who is eventually going to return your money to you. If you think privatizing social security is going to let you keep your money, guess again. You will never stop paying into this. You really don't think they are going to stop collecting a sure revenue, do you? However, you will see very little benefits from it if they pull this scheme off. It will be pissed away, just like your tax surplus and you will have nothing for it.

[Cash]

28. Thanks for the advise.

And I've never spoken of privatizing at all, just that fact that it's reasonable to see where an individual would want to leave their benefits for their loved one's should they pass on and how that is appealing. Whether that's practical or not is up for debate.

The majority of my personal plan calls for me slapping those hands before they get too close, and I'm doing just that. I'm paying in what is necessary at this point to stay in the system with the full realization that it may not even exist anymore when I reach retirement age. I can't tell you how many people I know are doing this very same thing and have been for years and years and years now, just like me. If I plan for nothing and something still exists, at least I'm ahead of the curve. But, that's just my personality type and how I think.

Take Care.

[oneighty]

59. Ahhh

A rugged individualist. Nothing wrong with that I guess having been one myself.

One day you will embrace socialism.

I bet.

Good luck for you with your dreams.

180

PS. Welcome to DU.

[Cash]

72. Huh?

All I'm doing is preparing for my future under the assumption that SS may not be around or will be less than promised when I do retire while at the same time using the SS system as currently established in a way that where it will best benefit me and my family when I do retire, just as individuals participate in any insurance program for their benefit.

So, exactly how is the way I'm viewing it or what I'm doing a bad thing?

[oneighty]

75. No it is not a bad thing

I did not say that. I said good luck with your dreams.

But why not have both the socialist plan (Social Security) and a private account on the side unconnected to SS such as the Bush* says congress has?

Congress has both,personal accounts and social security. That is good. They wisely are hedging their bets. Why they be doing so I wonder?

By the way my annuities took a 37 percent minus hit in 2001 and have never recovered. I am glad I had both SS and military retirement.

Good luck with your plans.

180

[FighttheFuture]

90. So nice for YOU.... but that's not the point!!

It's good that " put more trust in myself to look out for me and my family than I do a bunch of politicians in DC." or whatever. Know what, you could still have fucked up and failed. Then you would really want SS and every other social safety net available. Ask those who though they had a good thing with Enron, MCI, etc! Or are wiped out by some unexpected catastrophe.

If you, or "rugged individualists" like you who think in these society defeating terms, want SS to be around, then you need to hold your politicians accountable for it. You also, more so, need to hold yourself accountable for your attitude. Not adopts some lasses fare, gay sa-rah, sa-rah attitude of what will be, will be.

Something many do not understand, and I know you are in that group, is the greater the difference between have and have-nots in society, the greater the crime, violence, and chance for bloody revolution. The more things are normalized, even if all are poor, the less the chance for this. The more all are in the same boat, the more they are willing to row together to a better destination. The rise of the middle class should make this clear.

Your beliefs, perhaps good for your own survival in the wilderness, are foolish and self-defeating to creating a more complex, humane, livable society. Think about it!

I agree there is nothing wrong with planning for more, or not relying on something exclusively. However, there is no reason SS should have to cut, or go away. Hold politicans accountable.

[Cash]

104. No, you don't know me.

And you don't know my motives and you don't know enough to place me in any "group." So when you say "and I know you are in that group," I'm going to tune you right out.

Did I ever say I wasn't in favor of SS? No, I never did. Never even drifted in that direction. Did I ever say I wasn't going to hold my elected representatives accountable for what they do? No, I didn't. Never even implied it. All I said was I was preparing in case SS wasn't there when I retire. Now, if I prepare for it not being there, and it still is there, what have I done that's hurt anything? That's right; nothing. All I did was hedge my bets, gave myself another option in case one didn't work out. Where the rest of this stuff you're saying came from I'm not sure because it has nothing to do with me or what I said.

[FighttheFuture]

106. Fair enough....

I may have pigeon-holed you unfairly. If so, I apologize.

Just hold them accountable. There is no reason for this sky is falling that BushCo and the Repugs have launched on SS. If they are concerned with paying the bond's when SS has to start drawing on them, then they should rescind the tax cuts, especially on the rich and corporations, and pay down the deficit. After all, it is they, the wealthy and powerful, who have benefited most from this society. It is fitting that they should pay the most.

As for you making other plans, I agree. It is wise and prudent. However understand that you were, for whatever reasons, fortunate enough to do so. Many are not. Although we may all be equal, we are not all born into equality. That is the nature of life.

As for SS, it is not intended to keep you in luxury, just out of a fridge box in the park. It's great for what it is, as insurance. Making other plans is always wise, if you can afford to do so. SS is just one prong of what must eventually be a much better social safety net of universal health care, advanced education, housing, food assistance and labor rights.

[MissWaverly]

27. let ssn stay the way it is

I'm glad you are responsible, we need someone with your fiscal responsibility in government. They are like kids on a spree. We need to raise the cap, raise the retire age by 2 years and get our hand out of the SSN cookie jar, let the surplus alone.

[Cash]

29. That's kind of you to say.

You know, I haven't been here long, but I have seen people here wondering what both the conservatives and liberals could agree upon, and the one thing I can think of is that anyone I've ever talked to says to me, regardless of their political leanings or social status is, and that is people aren't very happy with how politicians in DC mismanage our money. I've seen some here wondering if another Civil War is around the corner, but I tend to believe if anything is going to take place, it's going to be a tax revolt, and it's going to come from every conceivable angle; both left and right, rich and poor, black and white.

Maybe I shouldn't be speculating these things out-loud since I'm new here. But, I hope you understand what I'm saying because what you said made me think about it. It's just a gut feeling.

Oh, well. Time to hit the sack and get some shut-eye. Good-night.

[MissWaverly]

30. welcome to DU!

we like people who are honest and can listen to what others have to say, we are not paranoid bumper sticker checkers, I'm worried about the money more than anything, my grandparents lost their life savings in the Great Depression.

Hope to see you around.

MissWaverly

[Knight of Ni]

94. Great Depression, HELL!.....

....What about the Enron/Worldcom/etc. accounting scandal fallout from just 3 YEARS AGO? Anyone set to retire in early to mid 2002 was severely screwed, and even 2003-2005 retirees felt the pinch. Can you imagine the damage incurred if we DIDN'T have Social Security?

[tabasco]

37. Social Security operates with a 3% overhead ...

and has NEVER missed a payment.

I hardly call that mismanagemnent.

Whatever.

[MissWaverly]

89. not social security but

the cross over of the pension surplus to maintain government programs, the surplus should be used for the pension only. That's what we mean by mismanagement.

[Toots]

31. If your money goes into stocks and bonds it certainly is not secure.

You wish to gamble with your future, I understand that but when millions have invested their money and lost all what should the government do? Should the country just sit by and watch these people starve and become diseased? I would suspect that a lot more will be spent cleaning up the mess than you may save on interest rates. Preventative Maintenance works. Social Security is just that. It actually keeps government (your taxes) costs down because it doesn't have to provide for the indigent. Remember there was a reason Social security came into being. Republicans pulled this same crap before and caused the Great Depression. Make an educated decision on this it is important....

[trekbiker]

46. except that SS is not an investment program...

like an IRA or 401K. It is an INSURANCE program. If I pay auto insurance for 40 years and never get in an accident should I get my premiums back? Or if I pay state dissability insurance but am never dissabled??

I have a friend who is dissabled. She is a single mom, 42 years old, was a stay at home mom so did not contribute much at all into SS. She has two ruptured cervical disks and will never be able to hold down a regular job. She collects SS and barely makes ends meet. Should her SS payment be denied so it can go to the woman in your example?

myself, I always seem to be a few thousand over the wage cap so I pay max SS every year (funny how they designed it that way to catch the bulk of the middle class). Since I max out every year should I get double the SS payment of someone who pays in half of what I do? NO. I'm happy to pay in and the real solution to this is to raise or eliminate the cap. I imagine if the cap was eliminated the overall %tax could be lowered slightly.

[AuntiBush]

53. Let me Tell you about losing your mate unexpectedly.

It hurts, in more ways then one can count. Let's say it's a traumatic death, at that. And you have no one, and I mean no one. You've out-lived your family, you have no one - no siblings, nada. Stressing "you took it bad" because he/she died very, very traumatically, without warning.

Would one expect that mate to just rise to the occasion and smile into next day knowing their world just fell totally apart.

Besides, you're mates SS does come back to you. Ask anyone born after 1950.

Agree w/Plaid Adder 100 percent. If that's the philosophy, I can think of plenty of things I don't want to pay for, like that war, and all those real nice new evangelical tabernacles spring up all over our communities, tax exempt at that.

:argh:

[Bullshot]

96. What about the children who lose a parent before the parent retires?

Don't they and their surviving parent draw a Social Security payment until they reach adulthood?

What's this nonsense about your family never collecting on SS if you should die before retirement? Another example on how Bush doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, and the media whores just play along with his game.

That's why I don't watch mainstream network news anymore. It's a total joke. My journalism profs would have a major fit if their students turned in the work that these bozos produce for the major media today.

[sinkingfeeling]

101. That may be true of some people/couples, but to anyone that has

watched Social Security work for 70 years, it's a no-brainer. Did your grandmother or great-grandmother work for the required 'quarters' outside of the home? Hundreds of thousands of women, who did not have careers during the 40's, 50's, and 60's, receive benefits from their spouse's SS. Neither of my grandmothers ever held a paying job, one lived for over 40 years basically off of SS and a sell of 40 acres. The other also outlived her husband by more than 40 years and had nothing except Social Security. In my family, men die young and women live into their 90's. How's that for 'fair'?

[Cleita]

13. I don't have kids. Why should I pay for public schools?

I couldn't listen because I knew he was going to attack the SS thing, something that worries me everyday, and right now my stress tolerance is very low.

Since my husband died, I worry about what this government is doing to my Social Security and my Medicare, two things that I need to face the future alone with. Is he going to rip the rug out from under all us seniors and future seniors? Would he advise me to get a job at my age or go find another husband who could support me?

Just whose ass do these people have their collective heads stuck up?

[Virginian]

38. I never had any kids...

Paying taxes for schools is paying them back for the free public education I received years ago. If I die young, my education doesn't cost me as much as it does if I live to a ripe old age. I guess I pay for the years I use my education.

I consider Social Security to be a pay-it-forward system. Sometimes you don't get any return and sometimes you get a return better than you deserve. I guess it's like raising kids, but I wouldn't know.

Life insurance - A bet with the insurance company that you will die before you pay off your policy.

Auto insurance - A bet with the insurance company that your accident will cost more than your policy.

[Cleita]

40. Oh, I agree. I never minded my taxes going for schools.

I was being sarcastic.

[Virginian]

42. I know you were kidding...

I have never heard anyone express their school taxes were like paying back a student loan from K-12, only the payment is in a direct ratio to the value of the education and the length of it's use.

[outrage]

87. Clieta, I know you were being sarcastic...

but just a word to the wise. Which would you rather pay for the schools or the jails?

[Cleita]

91. There is a lot of things I don't like my tax money being used

for, like war, however, they can spend all they want on education all the way through the university level, like it used to be back in California when Pat Brown was Governor.

[Hello_Kitty]

76. That's a reasonable way to calculate it

I, too, don't have kids but I don't balk at paying taxes. It's one of the few taxes I'd pay MORE of if needed. People paid taxes for me to go to school and I wouldn't have gotten very far in life if I couldn't read or write.

I resent paying more for auto insurance, though. I'm 36 and I don't drive a hot rod. I've actually looked up the accident rates of single vs. married people over 34 and do not see justification for us paying more.

[LiberallyInclined]

88. I don't have kids, and i never attended public schools

so i'm really getting gypped.

I don't mind at all my taxes paying for schools-
HOWEVER- when they start giving people vouchers if their kids are in private school, they had DAMN WELL be prepared to give money back to the childless as well.

[Cleita]

92. I went to private school most of my life too.

I spent two years in public school totally. As a matter of fact we envied the public school kids for getting their books and school supplies free and having nice playgrounds and sports fields. I think vouchers would work only if you close all the public schools and give people vouchers to send their kids to the school of their choice as long as those schools met state scolastic guidelines in curriculum, etc.. You can't do both. It would seriously compromise many mostly poor kids getting a basic education. Many would be cheated.

[LiberallyInclined]

93. vouchers are just another scam to steal taxpayer money...

when they start closing the worst schools, the other schools will be too crowded, or the parochial schools won't be able to take them all either- so you'll start to see private, for-profit, "charter schools" that are exempt from state legislation, but are all-to-happy to accept those yummy taxpayer-funded vouchers...some states have them already, and there have already been 'horror stories' about abyssmal conditions...think 'oliver twist'.

[Cleita]

99. You are so right.

I am against vouchers. I was just saying that the only way that they could work marginally would be if there were only private schools and all public schools closed. The problem with this is that many students wouldn't be able to get into the schools they want, because private schools always cherrypick who they want.

Traditionally, religious schools are supposed to accept students who can't pay if they are Catholics or whatever religion involved because their congregations shouldn't mind paying for the poor children theoretically. I knew many kids who didn't pay tuition, when I was in school, and we were encouraged to donate our books to them instead of selling them.

So I think this is somewhere where charities could be the best bet, or....., they could go to public school for free.

[Maat]

17. What a great rant!

Too bad you are preaching to the Choir.

It is called INSURANCE, pResident Bush. Here, let me explain the concept to you ....

[NVMojo]

39. Then get out of the USA Sandbox, Chimpass! We don't want to share

our tax dollars with YOU anymore!!!

[eridani]

44. LTE: It's all so UNFAIR!!

So, according Bush, we can solve any and all problems just by making them more personal. Financing Social Security should no longer be insurance, but a personal investment. And that's just for starters.

Isn't the interstate highway system far too public? We can make it much more personal by giving every driver title to a piece of it, which s/he will be responsible for maintaining, funded by little private toll booths every few miles. Anything left over after maintenance would be pure personal profit! See, we pay for the toll booths by borrowing 10 trillion and adding it to the national debt, but all the unleashed entrepreneurship should make up for that in two or three years.

Or how about personalizing fire protection? All that property tax money down a rathole just because some know-it-all elitists force responsible sober citizens to subsidize the irresponsible people who have fires. Somebody doing something stupid, like letting their kids play with matches, is the cause of 99% of all fires. If we had personal Fire Savings Accounts, we would be empowered to get money back for not having fires, and the expense of supporting fire departments would be the sole responsibility of those whose lack of personal responsibility causes fires in the first place.

And we should also do something about those meanies in our state government who force us to buy liability insurance in order to drive legally. I've paid it for years, and not gotten any return on my investment at all. That we don't already have personal Liability Savings Accounts makes me so mad that I need to find a utility pole someplace to smash my car into, just so I can get a little of my own personal money back. Enough of public, shared risk-spreading insurance schemes! I want my personal investment money, and I want it now!

[getmeouttahere]

56. That's a good, thought-provoking and funny rant.....

Conservatives would probably say you are taking it too far, but they are, as always, missing the hypocracy of their arguments. They want us to be personally responsible, but only when it serves their interests. I think the auto insurance part is especially telling. But when you mentioned giving every driver a piece of the road, it reminded me of something I read in a book by Joseph Heath called "The Efficient Society." He gave the example of how, back in the 80's I believe, St. Louis Missouri residents (living in upscale neighborhoods) decided to privatize some of the roads, making it nearly impossible to navigate certain areas of the city without taking an extremely circuitous route. I'll find the book and give a more detailed excerpt later, but it spoke to a basic principle...sacrificing efficiency for the sake of liberty.

[TeeYiYi]

82. No irresponsible little fire starters in my house . . .

. . . not even so much as a pack of matches!

I WANT MY MONEY BACK!

TYY:D

[NMMNG]

45. You know...

I pay federal, state and local taxes every year.

I've never once called the police for any reason.

I've never called an ambulance.

I have never called a fire truck to my home.

I don't have any children to utilize the public school system.

I have never used any 'social service' in any form.

I want my freaking taxes back!!!



:mad:

[Arkansas Granny]

49. Not only is it painful to watch, I think it's harmful to my health.

If my blood pressure was checked during one of these circuses, I'm sure it would be high enough to blow the top off the guage.

Didn't you love his explanation of why there's no money in the trust fund?

"You pay into the system through your payroll taxes, and the government spends it. It spends the money on the current retirees, and with the money left over, it funds other government programs. And all that's left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs."

I just want to sleep through the next four years. We're already experiencing the nightmare.

[Mugsy]

51. Uh, HELLO! Few lived long enough to benefit when SS was started!

Am I wrong?

When FDR set the retirement age at 65 (or was it 62 back then?), fewer people even lived long enough to collect benefits, and even less lived long enough to draw on it for very long.

Now, Bush is bemoaning that, "if your spouse dies, you can draw their money or yours, but not both."

Uh... yeah, dumbass. The system was never intended for every person to live along enough to draw out every dollar they put in.


I especially loved the part about pulling "your money" out of SocSec (T-Bills) to put them into (ta-da) T-Bills. What an idiot.

[Plaid Adder]

54. No, no, they're not T-Bills...they're filing cabinets full of IOUs!

Dumbass.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[The White Tree]

60. Yes that was my favorite.

When someone else (the social security administration) does it it's just IOU's but when you, I or the president does it it's a sound investment.

[eridani]

105. That is flat out wrong

http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html

In 1900, life expectancy from birth was 49.2 years, additional life expectancy of 65 year olds was 11.9, and additional life expectancy of 85 year olds was 4.0.

In 1930, life expectancy from birth was 59.2 years, additional life expectancy of 65 year olds was 12.2, and additional life expectancy of 85 year olds was 4.2.

In 1990, life expectancy from birth was 75.4 years, additional life expectancy of 65 year olds was 17.3, and additional life expectancy of 85 year olds was 6.3.

So we are talking about supporting an average retired person for an extra 5 years compared to the turn of the century and the Depression era, not the 10-20 extra years that citing data on life expectancy from birth suggests. If you die before you go to school, this is meaningless for old age benefits, as you will neither contribute to nor draw from them.

[Roland99]

55. Oh, come on. People should plan for their own retirement

Complaining about minimum wages? Hell, work three jobs. You'll be a "hard-working American" then and the country will bow down at your feet and then spit on you for being an idiot who didn't plan their life well and fvcked up in school and didn't get a good job.

Nevermind you may have to work those three jobs to pay for kids and healthcare because a deadbeat father left you, or worse, the kids' father died.

Or, perhaps you lost your job to some Indian making $10/day and you now bag groceries at WalMart on the graveyard shift after working as a receptionist or a CSR for 8 hours before that in order to pay your car payment and insurance and food and healthcare and rent and utilities.


I mean, come on! You damn slackers. Invest in that stock market. It's obvious you're just a poor planner and expect something for nothing. Get off your ass and get busy making money!




Pitiful.



Compassionate Conservatism?


If they were any more compassionate we'd all be dead.

[lonestarnot]

57. LOL...don't want to be dead. Not yet...have to see this regime die before

I go.

[lizerdbits]

61. Was the RoveResponder 3000 not transmitting properly?

I doubt they forgot to hook him up. I am physically unable to listen or watch him for very long, it is literally painful.

There must be some secret gospel most of us aren't allowed to read that talks about a super-rich Jesus kicking the poor and disabled in the groin and telling them they are lazy, then taking any posessions they may have left for himself. I'm agnostic but these are the kind of people who make me wish there really is a fiery hell to punish them. Funny how wealthy "Christians" don't seem interested in that 'easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven' stuff.

[CottonBear]

71. LOL! RoveResponder 3000! Brilliant new term!

I think that KKKarl and KKKaren Hughes were both whispering into his ear thus confusing the smug little lying sack of shit even more.

It was painful to watch and listen. I don't know how the press corp stands to experience * speaking live and in person.
:puke:

[Ysolde]

62. You guys here at DU are so great!

I had to listen (not watched -- I faced AWAY from the smirching chimp) to this last night while I was grabbing a bite to eat at the student union. It was nauseating, but luckily I was gnoshing with a like-minded parent and we were both snarking at his comments.

Thank you Plaid Adder for your message. It is an apt description of so many of my Repug co-workers (mine! mine! mine!) and it describes my Fundie brother exactly (no sharing! I did it myself! I home-school, why should I pay for public education?).

And, as for the rest of the posts here, it is so nice to hear from thinking, caring individuals. I did relish all of the posts pointing out the complete hypocrisy of privatizing SS, but not privatizing everything.

I think I'd go mad without DU to connect to!

[JDPriestly]

64. It's not fair -- that Bush is "president."

Bush is incompetent. It's not fair that he is president.

[sinkingfeeling]

66. You nailed it! Bush is not a uniter nor a divider. He's a splinter-er!

It seems to be the desire of the RW to break down our citizens into individuals or nuclear families and to get them to think only of themselves.

The 'ownership society' is nothing more than 'every man for himself'. Funny how Bush is so big into this when he's accomplished nothing in his life on his own!

Why have a federal government at all...I've never gotten a thing from FEMA, so let's let anyone wiped out by a hurricane or flood or tornado, pay for the damage on their own. Let everybody have a 'special' savings account to cover any damage to their home, cars, or personal health and shut down the insurance industries all together. I say let's have an account for personal defense..I'll buy a couple of Uzi's and defend myself against foreign invasion!

Let's just get rid of the federal government and the country as well.
Why not? We're gradually eliminating the sense of a community, working for the common good, and replacing it with personal greed, anyway. We have a whole class of wealthy and powerful people who don't believe laws or ethics apply to them. Feed and clothe your own family..do your own health care...don't give a dime to any charity...protect yourselves in gated communities and with private body guards. That's what makes you rich!!

[Southsideirish]

67. It all boils down to "ME" - the childish selfishness that liberals outgrew

as children and the asshole republikkkcans never did. Assholes.

[Cleita]

70. Yep, all that id got arrested in development at the toddler age.n/t

[CitySky]

68. psst... CAPITALISTS have a word for "sharing" too --

it's called "INSURANCE." Insurance works because a large pool of people agree to share risks.

Social Security is an INSURANCE program, not an investment scheme.

[Stew225]

69. I love The Plaid Adder's writing, especially

when she's angry! It's a treat to hear so called profanity used so intellectually effectively.

<<No, it doesn't disappear, asshole.>> made me lol!

Of course, the explanation refuting ss was excellent as well.

[CottonBear]

73. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

Your writing is perfect and always spot on. Thank you, thank you, thank you. :)

[chomskysright]

77. Say it like it is Plaid Adder: FUCK THIS BULLSHIT

[hippiechick]

78. PlaidAdder, you SO rock !!

Applause, applause !!! :thumbsup:

[LSK]

79. BRILLIANT WRITEUP!!!

A perfect writeup of the issue.

[SammyBlue]

80. Hey Plaid

Join the club. The first words out of my mouth when my father says "guess what happened in Washington" are "what did that asshole do now?"

My professional parents (who make out like bandits due to their affulence) should be more narrow minded, but after the tax cuts, my father donated the balance of the family's newly given gain to five different charaties, Little League being the most endowed.

My father disliked Nixon. . .He HATES Bush!!! I have never seen a fire in him like this in my 27 years.

Problem is, like I said in one of our posts. . .Chimpy, and his ilk, control the language war. And they are winning it without a fight.

[DrCorday]

81. And I loved that whole "for the poor" thing...

Fuckin hilarious. Republicans think they can get people to support their third rail Social Security plan by pretending to be Robin Hoods.

There was a time when they didn't even lie about this. When they were like "Democrats take money from the working class and give it to the non-working class." Now, I guess, they're all about welfare, billing the insane idea of private accounts-but-still-social security as some sort of populist measure. I'd laugh about this some more if I didn't have to vomit.

[outrage]

84. Adder, this is typical of the mind-set of some conservatives....

they don't believe in social responsibility. It's I've got mine, so screw you, buddy. Now they're always raving about morals. How moral is it to stiff some of our most vulnerable citizens? As long as the profit motive rules in America with its attendant emphasis on competition and rugged individualism we're going to need a safety net. But Mr. President and those ideologues that’ve high jacked our government don't want this. They want us all to be serfs. That's their ultimate goal. Rat Bastards.

[Bullshot]

98. Many of your typical conservatives were born with a silver spoon

in their mouths. And they think that's how the whole world operates. If you're not affluent, then you must have done somthing wrong.

Unfortunately, this country has been commandeered by too many people with this mindset. The fact is, if they had to start life the way many people do, they would turn to social programs faster than you can blink. I know. I have some ultra-Republican neighbors who draw from government programs whenever they get into a pinch, instead of being rugged individualists and working through the problem themselves.

[riffraff_va]

97. Privatization isn't that bad of an idea!!

Me personally, I don't see private(or personal) accounts as a totally bad idea. It allows an opportunity for poor families to get out of the poverty statistic, it allow more people to take advantage when the market flourishes, and it gives more money to corporations to create more and new jobs.

I was taught the there are 3 types of income: one is earned income(income earned from your job whether its legal or not), the second type is invested income(income earned from investing in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.), and the third income is hand-out income(income earned from estates, winning the lottery, or just money giving to you).

What privatization does is at least increase income by allowing that money that was invested to go to the families that loss someone.

Bush's idea that "sharing is bad" is stupid because we share money in the stock market, we share money in the bank(that how loans work). Privatization alone DOESN'T end the problem, but I would mind if privatization gets passed.

[Cleita]

100. One more time. We have privatization.

They are known as IRAs, 401ks and Keogh plans. Social Security is retirement insurance like life insurance, a whole different animal. Don't you see what the PNAC robber barons are trying to do? Privatizing has already proved to be a dismal failure in England and Chile. Why would we want it?

If you want money deducted out of your check for IRAs, etc., to be invested as you want, then get your legislators to work on this not the SS program.

[FighttheFuture]

107. Where does the money come from to do this scheme?

That is the first problem. SS is pay as you go, so where is the money to support those who are already drawing from it, or to equalize those who have contributed toward it for years vs. those just entering, while also launching this "privatization" scheme? Hmmmm?

Privatization of necessities is almost always a bad idea. I would think the messes that have been created over the last 25 years from the privatization mantra, whether in Airlines, Telecoms, or especially energy, would have woken up to that fact.

Privatization should be renamed "pickpocketization".

As for income, SS is not an income program, it is an insurance program. Try to understand the difference.

If you want private account, then they need to add them on, not raid SS for them. Also, for example, they need to encourage savings by not taxing the fist $100K in savings, by exempting taxes on the first $50K in income, and exempting FICA taxes for individuals on the first $20K in income. Take of the caps on SS so the higher incomes also pay, and lower the tax rate on it, or make it progressive. With these exemptions, they can then mandate a small percentage of income above poverty level should go to personal accounts in safe investments. That will strengthen SS while also encouraging individual savings and creating private accounts.

Or, they can avoid these complexities and build better social safety nets such as universal health care, education food, and housing assistance. Then what an individual saves privately is their business for a more comfortable retirement.

The carve-out plans of BushCo are simply a scheme to destroy it while enriching their cronies. Dont be a SUCKER!

[WestMichRad]

102. Thanks for the crisp summary, Plaid Adder

It's 100% dead on, and inspired a lot of good posts. :loveya: This is what I find so valuable in DU threads.

Just can't wait for the next staged press conference from the head bozo of the United Snakes of Deception! :puke:

[lefty_WOHM]

109. YES! YES! YES!

That is what I have been shouting at the TV every time this stupid idea has come up! Social Security is not a gov't-run retirement account! What I can't figure out is he so stupid that he doesn't get it, or he just doesn't care?