you have your opinion and i have the facts on my side i think i will stick with the facts . the bush plan was a disaster in the making and noting more than a scam to make money for the stock market brokers
On Sep 17, 2:33 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike, you do not... Go the the SSA site, the FTP site, and google for > what Bush proposal was... On this subject you are a fool professing > wisdom... > > On Sep 17, 3:47 am, "mike532 [ vote for America , vote against > McCain ! ]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > i do have my facts straight ! > > > On Sep 16, 9:24 am, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Get your facts straight. > > > > >>> The public should know that Social Security is fundamentally sound > > > >>> today and is projected to be sound far into the future. The line about > > > > Social Security going bankrupt is just a scare tactic pushed by the > > > privatizers. > > > > SS when it started had 40+ workers for each retiree... FDR wanted a > > > system that would entitle OLDER WORKERS to a pension while younger > > > workers paid into a self funded annuity... Congress, Democrats > > > primarily and Republican, used SS benefits to buy votes so benefits > > > levels CAN NOT BE self funded... This pay-go system also spent the > > > FICA excess... This means to pay benefits in the future either the > > > treasury has to print money or it has to be paid from the then current > > > tax revenue... By 1986 the unstability required a fix... Now the fix > > > needs a fix... > > > > By 2040 os so there will be only 2.2 workers per retiree who will get > > > over $20,000 -- that is each worker will have to pay $10,000 directly > > > to a retiree while trying to raise a family and buy a first time > > > house... That situation WILL CAUSE A POLITICAL revolt... > > > > Second do you even know what is meant by SS privatization??? The one > > > offered was along the lines of the very well run and regulated FTP... > > > > On Sep 16, 5:44 am, "mike532 [ vote for America , vote against > > > McCain ! ]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > McCain Would Privatize Social Security > > > > http://www.truthout.org/article/mccain-would-privatize-social-security > > > > The Republicans have already turned to sick sexual innuendo and > > > > nonsense about their vice-presidential candidate, pigs and lipstick in > > > > order to distract the public from the real issues in this campaign. > > > > One of the items that should be on top of the list of real issues is > > > > Senator McCain's plans to privatize and cut Social Security. > > > > > McCain has repeatedly expressed interest in privatizing Social > > > > Security along the lines proposed by President Bush. For those who > > > > have forgotten that nightmare, Bush's plan would have reduced benefits > > > > by approximately one percent a year for many workers. > > > > > Workers who retired 10 years after the plan was put in place would > > > > see a 10 percent reduction in benefits compared with the currently > > > > projected levels. Workers who retired 20 years after the plan was > > > > implemented would see approximately a 20 percent cut in benefits and > > > > workers who retired 40 years after the plan started would see their > > > > benefits cut by close to 40 percent. > > > > > This schedule of cuts would apply to workers who earn $100,000 a > > > > year. Workers who earn $60,000 a year would see cuts of about half > > > > this size. > > > > > The losses to retired workers could mean big benefits for the > > > > financial industry. Under some versions of the plan, the financial > > > > industry would rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in fees and > > > > commissions over the next 40 years. > > > > > According to a recent World Bank analysis, the financial industry > > > > pocketed 15-20 percent of the money paid into the privatized Social > > > > Security system in Chile, which has often been held up as a model by > > > > privatizers in the United States. Given the losses that the > > > > millionaire Wall Street bozos have incurred with the housing crash, it > > > > is understandable that Senator McCain would want to help the very rich > > > > needy. > > > > > Privatization would be especially painful coming now, in the wake > > > > of the collapse of the housing bubble. The huge baby boom cohort that > > > > is just now reaching retirement age has seen most of their wealth > > > > wiped out by the housing crash. > > > > > A recent analysis that I did with David Rosnick, my colleague at > > > > the Center for Economic and Policy Research, showed that a typical > > > > late-baby-boomer household (between the ages of 45 and 54) will have > > > > less than $100,000 in wealth in 2009. This figure includes 401(k)s, > > > > IRAs and other retirement accounts, personal savings and home equity. > > > > > A relatively small share of these late baby boomers has > > > > traditional defined-benefit pensions. In other words, these families > > > > are going to have very little to support themselves in retirement > > > > other than the Social Security that Senator McCain is so anxious to > > > > cut. > > > > > While the Bush-McCain crew has long been trying to whip up fears > > > > about Social Security's finances, the reality is that the program is > > > > financially solid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) > > > > recently updated its analysis of the program's finances. > > > > > The analysis projects that Social Security will be able to pay all > > > > scheduled benefits through the year 2049 with no changes whatsoever. > > > > Even after 2049, when the program is first projected to face a > > > > shortfall, the payable benefit is projected to be more than 30 percent > > > > higher than what the average retiree gets today, and the payable > > > > amount would continue to rise from that level every year. > > > > > The privatizers have worked hard to convince the public that > > > > Social Security is on its last legs, but this is simply a lie. We are > > > > going to face many problems that dwarf the dimensions of the projected > > > > Social Security shortfall. For example, the annual costs of the wars > > > > in Iraq and Afghanistan are approximately three times as large as the > > > > annual revenue that would be needed to eliminate the projected Social > > > > Security shortfall. > > > > > The 2049 date when Social Security is first projected to face a > > > > shortfall is more than three decades after the latest date when the > > > > next president can leave office. John McCain will be 113 when Social > > > > Security is first projected to be unable to pay full benefits. In a > > > > country where millions of families are struggling to hang onto their > > > > homes, and tens of millions are struggling to pay for health care and > > > > child care, a distant and relatively minor problem like the projected > > > > Social Security shortfall hardly warrants center stage. > > > > > The public should know that Social Security is fundamentally sound > > > > today and is projected to be sound far into the future. The line about > > > > Social Security going bankrupt is just a scare tactic pushed by the > > > > privatizers. > > > > > The presidential debate must return to Social Security and other > > > > issues that affect people's lives. The sleaze that Senator McCain and > > > > his vice-presidential candidate throw out as a distraction should be > > > > left to the pigs.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
