17 Comments
Not really. Check out the latest polling results: http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm
Most people aren’t for private accounts.
Kahn says: Then they could make a counter-offer. The have not. For the record, I like the personal accounts. And they were to be optional anyways.
Of course, the actual Dem Senators and Representatives will do just fine. They have lifetime pensions and most are very rich. But, the are the “party of the little guy!”
Doc says: Those against reform, in Congress, is because of one reason. They want to have the surplus to SPEND! We need to Shout this and educate the voters to vote out anyone that is against saving the surplus for Social Security not their power spending egos. Letwake up people!!!! At least Bush is trying to stop the waste. I just hope he succeeds.
Jay says: Hey, maybe Bush’s idea of private accounts IS a good idea. I think I’ll go hear him out.
Oh wait.
Bush’s “Town Hall Meetings” are only allowed to be attended by handpicked groups of supporters. He only speaks to those who already agree with him!
Ask any missionary, you don’t win converts by preaching to the choir. No wonder the more he flogs this plan the less the American people like it.
Kahn says: Jay – What is your alternative? Your post is centered on your disdain for Bush and not the substance of the actual proble.
So mighty Jay – what is YOUR answer?
Jay says: Well, let’s see 1) Lift the 90 grand cap on SS. That solves a huge chunk of the problem right there. 2) Raise the retirement age. 3) Cut benefits if we have to. 4) Maybe even some private accounts.
But here’s the problem(s): The cost of this I’ve heard to phase in private accounts is numbers anywhere from 1 to 2 trillion. Bush hasn’t accounted for that, he just wants to add on to the deficit. That is unacceptable. None of the plan addresses the solvency problem. And finally, I could never suggest this because I wouldn’t be allowed into one of his prescripted Town Hall Meetings anyway.
I don’t know why he keeps flogging it. The more he talks the less the public likes it. Maybe Karl Rove just wants Bush out of his hair.
Kahn says: Jay,
Good. Raise taxes, cut benefits. I think you are right – that will be the solution. Of course, since I went over $90K in May, that sucks for me.
You proposed the accounts and then dismissed them in the same sentence. So they don’t count.
But, why propose it to Bush? Just have your Democratic Congressman or Senator propose it. Oh wait. That’s right – they REFUSE to propose anything.
Bush keeps “flogging it” because it is a serious issue. Something Democrats only see as an opportunity to advance themselves – much like their seditious undercutting of the war.
I believe that the Dems aren’t particularly concerned about what form Bush’s SS reform plan took, they were exclusively interested in winning a PR coup by crushing anything Bush came forward with, meanwhile energizing the AARP block and getting them to swing left.
The same will hold true if Bush ever gets around to tackling tax reform. It won’t matter what form it takes, they’ll oppose it regardless.
Kahn says: Here’s a news flash – The Democrats STILL have not proposed a solution.
Hmmmmm – when will people realize that they are nothing but useless parasites?
Kahn says: Did anyone read the Democrat proposal for Social Security reform today?
Me either.
Kahn says: Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
Auto Insurance
wailed guano Americanize resurrects littlest degraded nonperishable Online Automobiles Insurance http://www.onlineautomobilesinsurance.com/
Cheapest Homeowners Insurance Florida
helmets.caving kicked collected?gusher Free Homeowners Insurance plan http://www.gnwhomeowners.org/free-homeowners-insurance-plan.html
Who said “no” to social security reform?
The Democrats
I believe they don’t like the private accounts idea (like many Republicans and their constituents). It’s generally accepted by everyone that Social Secuity reform is necessary.