"Social Security: Help for the Poor or Help at All?"

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/politics/01social.html?ei=5094&en=fe8d620a0f24f813&hp=&ex=1114920000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=

May 1, 2005

Social Security: Help for the Poor or Help for All?

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
and EDUARDO PORTER

WASHINGTON, April 30 - In attempting to fix Social Security's long-term problems without raising taxes, President Bush has chosen to recast the 70-year-old retirement program as one that would keep the lowest-income workers out of poverty but become increasingly irrelevant to the middle class and the affluent.

Under Mr. Bush's approach of "progressive indexation," a typical low-income worker who earns about $16,000 a year today would be entitled to retirement benefits equal to about 49 percent of his or her wages, the same amount that is promised today.

But those earning an average income, about $36,500 in today's dollars, would see big changes. Instead of replacing 36 percent of that person's working pay, as promised under today's system, benefits would cover only 26 percent of pay by 2075. And people who earn $90,000 a year in today's dollars would continue to pay as much as ever in taxes but would receive benefits equal to only 12 percent of their pay.

From the beginning, Mr. Bush has adamantly opposed alternative plans that would restore Social Security's solvency by raising taxes. While Mr. Bush has not ruled out an increase in the ceiling on income that is subject to payroll taxes, now $90,000, the idea is anathema to him and most Republicans.

"I know some rich people, and if you ask them whether they would rather have a tax increase or their benefits cut, they'll immediately say, 'Cut the benefits,' " said Representative Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
_______________

Who's the snide and hateful Bill Thomas talking to--Bill Gates?

[HawkerHurricane]

1. Geesh.

Here's what the social security crisis is all about:

For the past, oh, 70 odd years more money has gone into the Social Security program as taxes than has been paid out. This money has been used for all sorts of things, with the promise that it would be paid back if needed. In 10 or so years, that will reverse... AND THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO PAY BACK THAT MONEY.

And that is the crisis: The current fucks running the government don't want to pay back what is owed, because they KNOW that the tax cuts they pushed through were paid for by social security... and to pay back SS means rescinding the tax cuts.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Bingo! The Rethugs do not want to pay the borrowed $1.7 trillion back!

[Southsideirish]

2. And then when they finally arrange it so only the "poor" are eligible,

they will be pilloried and vilified as loafers, parasites in order to turn public opinion against them so S.S. will be eliminated altogether which is what they REALLY want. 19th century here we come.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Bingo, again! Turn SS into a "welfare program" and then end it!