Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.




George W. Bush finally came out of the closet on how he wants to fund his private accounts within Social Security. He wants to cut the benefits for 70% of Social Security recipients! It is one thing to consider cutting Social Security benefits for the wealthiest 5 or 10% of retirees but it is quite another matter to propose cutting benefits to 70% of retirees. This revelation should be the last nail in the private account coffin of George W. Bush.

Although Bush does not have to worry about being reelected, picture ANY congressman or senator up for reelection explaining that they voted to cut benefits for 70% of American retirees. The president’s plan to create private accounts not only doesn’t solve the existing funding problem with Social Security, it makes the problem worse. This is because it would remove trillions of dollars from the trust fund which is needed to pay for the baby boomer retirement. In other words Bush’s solution to a system that does not have enough money is to take even more money from the system. President Bush just doesn’t get IT- the vast majority of Americans do not want what he is selling. If he strong arms the Republicans in Congress to vote for his plan and cuts benefits for 70% of future retirees, we are going to see a power shift in Congress very very soon.

Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Apr 29, 2005
I have already looked. You are still full of bs. If it's on google then put a link up.
on Apr 29, 2005
It is the lead story in the New York Times top of the fold. It is you that is full of BS. Your Boy screwed up big time! www.newyorktimes.com story by Richard Srevenson and Elizabeth Bumiller It was on CNN at 1:40 PM
on Apr 29, 2005
It is the lead story in the New York Times top of the fold. It is you that is full of BS. Your Boy screwed up big time! www.newyorktimes.com story by Richard Srevenson and Elizabeth Bumiller It was on CNN at 1:40 PM


I haven't seen any evidence that "my boy" screwed up "big time". If you get all your "facts" from CNN and NYT, then that is half of your problem. All I asked is that you provide proof of your accusations. You still haven't.
on Apr 29, 2005
continue playing with yourself if that makes you happy. I have provided the stories, sources, the web sites, times the stories were on CNN and you just don't accept what Bush has said and doesn't make any difference. This idiot is not only get his way on Social Security because if he does, Republicans will return to the minority for the next hundred years.
on Apr 29, 2005
continue playing with yourself if that makes you happy. I have provided the stories, sources, the web sites, times the stories were on CNN and you just don't accept what Bush has said and doesn't make any difference. This idiot is not only get his way on Social Security because if he does, Republicans will return to the minority for the next hundred years.



You have not provided anything. This is about the third time I asked for a link to the specific story which you are basing your allegations. You haven't done it.

You are really crazy and obsessed. Your hatred for Bush blocks any rational thinking. You are a joke, and I'm glad the democratic party is filled with people like you, because no matter what, liberals will never have power in this country.
on Apr 29, 2005

No one is getting their goodies reduced. 

The benefits get raised for everyone.  The question is how fast benefits get raised.  The poorest Americans get their benefits raised at the same rate as worker pay has been going up.  The richest Americans get their benefits raised at the rate of inflation.  Eveyrone else is somewhere in-between.

What I find hypocritical is that Col Gene spends so much time bitching about deficits and as soon as a Republican tries to make things balance a bit, he screams bloody murder.  It's just mindless partisanship.

on Apr 29, 2005
I am reading the article from the News-Press Wire Service;

"one proposal he look at would keep benefits rising as promised for the bottom 30% of wage earners while reducing them for the rest (70% )".

Bush is trying to fund both his individual accounts and the existing shortfall in the trust fund to pay the baby boomers by reducing benefits to 70% of retirees.

I want to see the congressman and senator's who have the BALLS to put their name on legislation that would accomplish this end.


As usual your not getting the "full" story from your selected media outlet. In NO way has GW said or will support a 70% reduction in SS. What he HAS proposed is that SS not be allowed to grow any faster than the rate of inflation. And has proposed a 40% cap on SS raises per year.
on Apr 29, 2005
DR. M--

Thats what i was about to say...as i have the articles in another window...
on Apr 29, 2005
DR. M--

Thats what i was about to say...as i have the articles in another window...


Lucas....go ahead and post the links. Not that it'll make one bit of difference to the originator of this thread. But there are others that might like to know.

Well *col* looks like you've been proven *wrong* yet again. Go figure!
on Apr 29, 2005
Island Dog

www.newyorktimes.com

google Search "Bush Social Sceurity benefit cuts"

These are two sites. The story was on the CNN news all day.

I said Bush was proposing to cut benefits for 70% of Social Security retirees. He is proposing to cut them from what they would be on a sliding scale except for the bottom 30% .Only the bottom 30% would receive the benefit levels that have been promised upon retirement. As I said in my blog, I want to see Congress pass something like this. Because if they do, a lot congressmen and senators will be looking for something to do after their next reelection. We do not need individual retirement accounts for the simple reason they do not provide any solution to the funding issue in Social Security. Today the Social Security Administration admitted that individual accounts do not resolve the funding issue. You cannot fix the shortfall in Social Security by taking money out of the system and put that money into individual accounts. In addition, the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT the structure of Social Security changed. Bush is as far away from where the vast majority of Americans want to be on this issue he could be. It is time for him to understand this is not a dictatorship where what he says goes. It is what the majority want and the vast majority do not want the Bush change to Social Security!

on Apr 29, 2005
I just got done reading the Article on CNN.com: Link

This is what the Democrats have wanted for a long time. More money for the poor upon retirement and capping any extra increase on those who make more money. They just won a battle in the class warfare fight, it was just handed to them on a platter. Why are they fighting this?

IMO, it is because history shows those who invest their money, are more likely to vote Republican. They are just trying to protect their voter base.
on Apr 29, 2005
You fail to understand that we individual accounts do not resolve the funding problem in social security. The individual accounts make the funding problem bigger because less money will flow into the trust fund due to the creation of the individual accounts. Thus the amount of money needed to both fix the solvency and fund the individual's is huge .There is no way that we have money to pay for the president's plan. We should separate making social security solvent from the individual account issue. The reason for this discussion is to make Social Security solvent not create individual accounts. The simple solution is to make sure Social Security is properly funded by raising the retirement age and lifting the tax limit on Social Security wages. Individual accounts should be encouraged over and above the Social Security but not as part of the system. It is possible to enable Social Sceurity to meet its obligations by increasing the age for full retirement and adding to the trust fund by lifting the limit on Social Security Wages that are taxed. We need to Fund the baby boomer bubble. After that bubble has passed, the number of people working compared to the number retired will return to something closer to today when the system is able to pay the full benefits.
on Apr 29, 2005
Island Dog

www.newyorktimes.com

google Search "Bush Social Sceurity benefit cuts"

These are two sites. The story was on the CNN news all day.


Like I said, part of your problem is CNN and the NYT. If you are going to make accusations against someone, why don't you post a link to your sources.



In addition, the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT the structure of Social Security changed. Bush is as far away from where the vast majority of Americans want to be on this issue he could be. It is time for him to understand this is not a dictatorship where what he says goes. It is what the majority want and the vast majority do not want the Bush change to Social Security!


Bush doesn't run the country based on polls. Another good quality. It also has nothing to do with being a dictatirship,m your rhetoric is getting more fanatical everyday.

If a poll showed that people wanted to live under a dictatorship, then you would agree?
on Apr 29, 2005
Island Dog

www.newyorktimes.com

google Search "Bush Social Sceurity benefit cuts"

These are two sites. The story was on the CNN news all day.

I said Bush was proposing to cut benefits for 70% of Social Security retirees. He is proposing to cut them from what they would be on a sliding scale except for the bottom 30% .Only the bottom 30% would receive the benefit levels that have been promised upon retirement. As I said in my blog, I want to see Congress pass something like this. Because if they do, a lot congressmen and senators will be looking for something to do after their next reelection. We do not need individual retirement accounts for the simple reason they do not provide any solution to the funding issue in Social Security. Today the Social Security Administration admitted that individual accounts do not resolve the funding issue. You cannot fix the shortfall in Social Security by taking money out of the system and put that money into individual accounts. In addition, the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT the structure of Social Security changed. Bush is as far away from where the vast majority of Americans want to be on this issue he could be. It is time for him to understand this is not a dictatorship where what he says goes. It is what the majority want and the vast majority do not want the Bush change to Social Security!


And CNN was WRONG! See reply #22 for starters on the correct path.
on Apr 29, 2005
And you seem to forget that Congress has long since spent the "trust fund" (hence Al Gore's much touted promise of a "Lock Box"). Quit acting like you're oblivious to the fact that the Democrat congress raided that fund years ago and the Republican run congress has followed suit.

What makes me laugh at you and the Congressional Democrats the hardest is that you and they keep talking as if there is not Social Security Crisis. Well, Clinton first brought it up, Al Gore RAN on saving it, and now the deaf, dumb and blind Congressional Democrats are acting like it's news to them.

You suggest they come up with an alternative? They don't have the brain power!! All they have is childish games and feigned concern for anyone put their pathetic selves. As long as they think they can make Prs. Bush look bad, that's all they care about.

When are you going to wake up to the fact that you are as mindless as they are!!!
4 Pages1 2 3 4