Bush Social Security Plan NO Answer

Published on May 16, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics

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 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 does the Bush changes solve the problem of cutting Social Security benefits to future retirees?

Comments (Page 2)

Island Dog

on May 16, 2005

I'm not trying to blame anyone. Bush is the one who is claiming there is a crisis with Social Security.

Actually democrats have been campaigning for years on how bad social security is. Now for some reason they don't think there's a problem and it should be left alone.

COL Gene

on May 17, 2005

If we all agree the problem with Social Security is its inability to pay 100% of the benefits in the future , then we must find a way for it to pay the benefits. What George Bush has suggested will result in cuts of about 30% to future retirees. That is not paying promised benefits it is cutting the promised benefits. If we do nothing, Social Security itself will cut benefits by about 25% starting in 2042. So the issue remains how is what George Bush is suggesting a solution to the Social Security problem he has identified? The changes Bush has suggested will produce the very same result as doing nothing!

The ONLY way to make sure Social Security is able to continue paying 100% of the benefits after 2042, is to increase the amount of money in the Trust Fund to cover the baby boomer retirement benefits! If we are not willing to do that, do nothing and in 2042 the system will cut the benefits to equal the incomming tax revenue .

Zoomba

on May 17, 2005

Here's my attitude on Social Security:
1. It's not there to support us in our old age. It's there to supplement whatever savings we should establish for ourselves. SS is supposedly like paying into a big bank account that you get some back out of when you retire. It is a very small portion of what you earn overall.

2. The government has NEVER been able to properly invest money. If I took the same money I'd put into standard SS and put it instead into a stable money market account, I'd probably see a better return by a large margin.

I would MUCH rather be in control of my retirement funds than let the government manage one red cent. SS is a system that doesn't work.. it just took us a few decades to realize it. It needs a serious restructuring and fast, otherwise the money I put in will vanish never to be seen again. I'll be retiring right around the time the system is going to go belly-up. That will have been a working lifetime of SS contributions that I'll never see a return on.

COL Gene

on May 17, 2005

First, even if no changes are made, you will reveive 75% of the promised benefits. You are correct, Social Security was ONLY intended to be part of what a person needs for retirement. It has been a FLOOR to build on. The Bush changes will not fix the problems since his answer will cut your benefits the same as doing NOTHING! The Trust Fund is invested in Trearury Bonds which do pay interest as high as any Money market but less the the historic rate of return from equitty investments.

-----

on May 17, 2005

Reply #14 By: Citizen drmiler - 5/16/2005 5:37:05 PM
Bush is the one who said the problem with the social security is its inability to pay that benefits promised to future retirees. If the problem its inability to pay the promised benefits then Bush suggests cuts as a solution to the problem Bush identified in the first place? It should be cleared to the most simpleminded person, that either allow the benefit cuts to happen, which does not require any change in Social Security, or increase the amount of resources so that 100% of the promised benefits can be paid. But suggesting one set of cuts to prevent another set of cuts is not a solution it simply restating the same problem which is precisely what Bush has done.

I certainly favor increasing Social Security taxes so that future retirees can receive the promised benefits. If we to do that , millions of low and middle income Americans will suffer so the relatively small number of well-off Americans can live even higher on the HOG.

you STILL have not answered lucas! You bash Bush for even suggesting cuts to SS but then you turn around and advocate the same thing.

--Huh!? I didn't say that,that was the COL, my view on it is at least something is getting done about it, i applaud bush proposeing something, which seemed to take some democrats a long time, they must be a little slow, so dr. miler, please double check your info before you bash someone for something they didn't say....thank you, come again....

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!