A few questions about the proposed social (in)security plan.
The War President is flitting around the country trying to sell a pack of lies about social security this time. Does he not have any work to do? If any of you happen to catch him, maybe you can ask a few very important questions, since this plan is so vague that no one else seems to know the answers.
I know this is a trick question, and probably unfair since it is sure to confuse his face into a painful grimace, but I think we deserve to at least ask for the answer. HOW does adding personal accounts to Social Security solve the perceived problems in the system? I realize it might keep congress’ paws out of it (does the word lockbox cause flashbacks for anyone other than me?) but think it might be easier to teach the government and to “just say no” instead of setting up new departments and hiring thousands of people to oversee this personal account project. Anyway, if you could ask him that question, and to explain the actual numbers so we can see how this is going to work, it would be nice.
You might also ask him if he realizes the average disability check is around eight hundred dollars a month, which isn’t enough to cover the average rent and pharmacy bill for the average disabled person. I’m sure he doesn’t know that, or he would surely work to increase benefits, not decrease them. And while you’re on the topic of disability, will you ask how this personal account will play into the picture in his future plan? If someone becomes disabled before their personal account reaches that magical level of eternal self-sufficiency, what happens then? And will the disabled person be expected to drain their personal account before receiving any benefits? Will their benefits be based on previous work record, and adjusted according to personal savings? Will those who saved the most be penalized in this case?
Oh, here’s an easy one. Ask this one first since it only requires a two-word response. Since this new plan can’t possibly change the fact that he has used the surplus for other things, and soon the program will be paying more than it collects, which will he do – raise taxes or cut benefits?
How is the plan personal or private when the government is going to tell people what they have to do with it? For example, low-income seniors would be required to purchase an annuity that guaranteed poverty-level monthly benefits until death. Will we hire psychics to predict dates of death? And workers will “automatically be invested” in a fund that becomes more conservative as they approach retirement. Hmm… seems like freedom, choice, personal, private are all changing definitions these days.
What if an emergency came along, like an expensive life-saving surgery for someone who was out of work and had no insurance (can’t help but think of this when we have so many in this situation right now)? Wouldn’t it just plain suck if that person had to die while they had money in a personal retirement account that couldn’t be touched? Or wouldn’t it suck even more if they were allowed to use the money and then had to die in the streets later because they had nothing to fall back on?
What if the stock market crashes? What if our creditors call in their markers?
If he answers all of these questions, you might ask the big one. Wouldn’t it be easier and fairer to just take back that tax cut, since that amount alone would solve the problem?
Web Site: Sandy Knauer
Want to review or comment on this article?
Click here to login!
Need a FREE Reader Membership?
Click here for your Membership!
|Reviewed by miranda smith (Reader)
Funny thing is that all U.S. Senators and Democratic party Congressman have an investment account. But they do not want our freedom President to give the same opportunity to the rest of us.
While Florida Democrats are too busy killing Schiavo to take time to punish sexual predators
What is the stock market crashes? LOL
It is a that this article is written from such an pedestrian perspective. The money is being thrown away now by Democrats
who like to call Social Security a trust fund. Yeah Right!
Thank God for GW Bush.
|Reviewed by A Serviceable Villain
It would be wishful thinking on any deserving American's part to believe for one minute that they'll ever see their Social Security ... appalling ... thanks for sharing this well-done write!!
|Reviewed by Lady The Lake55
|Don't worry. This will not effect anyone of Social Security Disability programs now who are on it. People of SSI Disability get less than those who are on SSDI. I know people receiving the maximum amount.
Karissa Anne Lowell
|Reviewed by William Neven
|Bill Clinton proposed what George Dubya proposed about Social Security? I don't think so. [But thanks for a good laugh. I needed that.] Just as I don't think there will be a "mushroom cloud" over Social Security in the near future. Bush couldn't even directly answer Friedman's comment about how many trillions this little make-over would cost - and he is one of George's alleged supporters! Meanwhile, I'm 52. I'll go along with Bushie if he lowers the age to 50. [After all, I am still trying to get an Armstrong-type job with the Pres. Too bad they caught that GOP plant Gannon or Guckert or whatever he wants to call himself today who is not only at www.gop.com but also has apparently appeared in pix on a homosexual web site!] I know. Though the White House Press Secretary picked him out to ask those marshmallow questions these past few years, Da Prez - as we might say in Chi - knew nuttin' about it. [The man had no White House press credentials either, incidentally.] By the way, George essentially lost a race in Texas years ago because he made the same 'sky is falling' speech back then about the SSA. And that's a fact, Jack. Meanwhile, I'd like to hear more of Clinton's SAME proposal - and, please, no Monica-Lewinsky snippets. Old news reporters like I REALLY hate to find out that half a quote has been intentionally left out along the lines of the one often attributed to Shelley that "ignorance is bliss." Sorry but the quote is "WHEN ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise." Thanks for your input, Sandy.|
|Reviewed by Sandy Knauer
|UPDATE: For those who are confused and speaking of miracles, the Democrats said the program would be solvent, if left alone.. proposed lock boxes, etc. to keep the money where it belonged. Here's a quote where georgie boy tried to explain his proposal: "Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, 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?"
—President Bush, speaking in Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005, in response to a question about how private accounts could keep Social Security from going broke.
On second thought, maybe there's no point in asking him any questions. He sure can't answer them.
|Reviewed by Jack Roberts
|Speaking of that tax cut......... I remember when that was going on the dems were all over it about how bad of shape the SS system is in and this tax cut will break it completely. The other day concerning Bush wanting to reform SS I heard the new Senate minority leader say that SS is solvent for 50 yrs and it doenst need to be fixed. Go figure??? A miracle maybe?|
|Reviewed by Judy Lloyd (Reader)
|When I was six years old they were talking about Social Security and when I sold insurance under a Democratic President what Bush is proposing came to the front runner. In that having a policy that people paid into would be available upon retirement. It also came up during Jimmy Carter's administration what people do not know is that that cigar licking Bill Clinton also proposed this same thing. So why are the democrats having a hard time with this because they are not the ones proposing it. The present senators and congressman have it easy with their plans. They do not have to live like we do. I have heard how the the Repubicans are supposed to destroy SS for fifty years. I know that it needs over hauling. But these same people failed to go with Clinton's proposal. Taking back the tax cut is not going to solve sixty years of pardon me fing with what FDR started. That's government for you. And Sandy I have had life threatening surgery come along and wipe out what I started way back when I started working. I am not blaming anyone except for the greedy doctors. Everytime it was under a Democratic president and governor. Trust me you don't want to know what we pay for health insurance for a hospital to take everything you got. Me I stay out of hospitals now it is a lot safer.|