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



The proposal to create individual equity or bond accounts in Social Security subjects future retirement income to changes in the market. Earlier, I was a securities salesperson and have an understanding of the stock and bond markets as well as retirement planning. To adequately plan for one’s retirement requires a combination of investments including things that are relatively certain, Social Security and pension plans, as well as investments that may fluctuate with the market. I planned to retire in 2003 however when my wife got cancer it changed my retirement to 1998. For us my earlier retirement had a positive impact on our retirement income. Had I a retired as planned in 2003, our investment income would have been significantly less than it is today.

What President Bush is suggesting is to convert the floor of Social Security into an elevator by creating individual accounts that are subject to market changes. For some these accounts could increase their retirement income but for others they could result is less income upon retirement. There is no denying the market, over time, goes up and down. President Bush suggested that a bond fund could protecting retirees future investments from market changes. The president isn’t telling you that in a period of rising interest rates, like we are starting today, bonds actually dropped in value and you can have a huge capital loss in bond funds or an individual bonds within your investment portfolio during periods of rising interest rates.

There is a place for equity investments in retirement planning. The correct place is in ADDITION to the guarantees of Social Security and pensions. Thus in addition to the fact that the individual accounts DO NOT solve the Social Security funding issue, they also fail to be a sound component of good retirement planning based on market fluctuations that such investments experience.

Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on May 15, 2005
drmiler

It is not 4% $1,550 it is 4% of the $.25,000 . What Bush is saying is that 4 % of the 6.2% you pay in SS taxes that will go into the individual account. You are so DUMB. If all you were putting into the individual account was $62 a year in 30 years you would have $2,000 plus any earnings. That would not pay a months rent in 30 years. I have never experienced someone as limited as you appear to be.
on May 15, 2005
Could someone else try and explain this to him?


--Not me, i only passed high school economics with a C, and Math (in general) D....
on May 15, 2005
drmiler

It is not 4% $1,550 it is 4% of the $.25,000 . What Bush is saying is that 4 % of the 6.2% you pay in SS taxes that will go into the individual account. You are so DUMB. If all you were putting into the individual account was $62 a year in 30 years you would have $2,000 plus any earnings. That would not pay a months rent in 30 years. I have never experienced someone as limited as you appear to be.


No it's not you fool. Do you pay $25000 a year to SS? Nobody that I know does. So it's back to 4% of the $1550. What you pay to SS "by the SS website is 6.2% of what you make"! Do your math again and you'll find yourself wrong yet again! Read his proposal AGAIN! It's 4% of what you pay in! So if your paying 6.2 on 25K it is $1550 and 4% of that is $62! And if you want to use "your" figures, we can! Take your $1550 figure and throw it away! If I'm paying that much, 4% of that is $1000. That leaves $24K left from you. Now if I'm putting in 25K so is my employer, right? Let's see 25K plus 24K is 49K Now using a mathematical equasion, show me how $1000 is one third of what you pay in! It doesn't matter "what figures you start with your wrong. Once again proven wrong! And I've never encountered someone as ignorant as you.
on May 15, 2005
The whole Social Security investment plan is only part of Bush's ownership society. The hope is that years down the road the 4 percenters will be feeling so good about their ownership retirement that they will demand a larger percentage.

Right now only 4 percent of what you pay is a drop in the bucket. Why are the Democrats fighting this tooth and nail?

Simple, it is all about voter base. It is a fact that those who own homes, have personal retirement plans, and invest in the markets are far more likely to vote Republican. That is what the Ownership Society is all about. I see Karl Rove's finger prints all over this strategy.
on May 15, 2005
BTW Clueless Old Liberal here's the link to Bush's SS plans.

Link
on May 16, 2005
To demonstrate how inept the Bush solution is look at the following:

Bush said Social Security is in trouble and the Social Security actuaries confirmed that if we do NOTHING, Social Security would have to cut benefits by 25% beginning in 2042.

The Bush solution is to first transfer Trillions of dollars into individual accounts which makes Social Security more insolvent and does nothing to prevent the 25% cut in benefits beginning in 2042.

The second part of the Bush solution is to recalculate a COLA in future benefits so as to reduce benefits between 25 and 30% for future retirees.

If we do nothing, we will see a 25% cut in benefits. If we implement the Bush solution will have a 25 to 30% cut in benefits. HOW did the Bush changes solve the problem of cutting Social Security benefits to future retirees?
3 Pages1 2 3