WHITE HOUSE BLASTS WASH POST ON SOCIAL SECURITY CLAIM....

DRUDGE REPORT ^

[Shermy]

You must have not been paying attention or didn't get to watch the President's speech last night. Bush has no intention of putting out specifics. He's put forth a general plan, and outline if you will, and wants input from Congress before they will collectively settle on the specifics.

Bush has been floating the "specifics" via leaks for the past month or so, and they've been seriously tested, mostly from conservatives, the liberal political establishment not even knowing why they believe the things they do.

Apparently this Wash Post reporter was wrong to a degree, but where you think he got his information? Wasn't Congress.

Bush can follow the normal course, propose the bill, THEN bargain and discuss. I read his "Congress" ploy to be an exit strategy to save some of that "political capital" he completely pinned on Social Security "reform".

Even this WH release, putting aside whether its "facts" are really speculations, makes it clear that it's not money under our control but the government's control.

[ModelBreaker]

If he were to divorce, his account would be marital property.

Now there's a big advantage . . .

[Shermy]

I wonder where the WP got such an idea?

The "White House." The democrats don't have the plan any more than we have it. It's a working project.

The reporter misinterpreted the info he was given, or the fellow explaining it to him didn't understand it.

[anniegetyourgun]

see #13

[YOUGOTIT]

Typical of the left-wing media. They will lie cheat and steal to get their left-wing anti-American Socialist dogma out as the truth when it is a lie 90% of the time.

[pepperdog]

Huh?

[onyx]

Yes ma'am!

[FreeRep]

I believe president Bush is doing a good job, something take time, he needs our support.

[bamaborn]

I gather you're not in favor of private SS accounts?

[lonevoice]

An update on the earlier ping today.

Heard someone from the WH press office this AM say that the Post story was completely wrong and that the WH was trying to get a retraction for it.
22 posted on 02/03/2005 9:55:23 AM PST by Roccus (Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Shermy]

I gather you're not in favor of private SS accounts?

Correct. And I contest that the accounts (as so far described) are "private" in the sense of I control it. I would not. We are (apparently) given a few options that the government will control. Just give me my money back, I'll invest it.

Besides the lobbying dollars and special interest problems with deciding just what funds and stocks will be privileged for inclusion, and the government's liability if things screw up, think of the government intrusion into ownership of business. It will be huge.

[Hunble]

When are the Democrats going to learn?

1) George W. Bush will tell you exactly what he will do.

2) Democrats assume that he is just like them and only bluffing.

3) President Bush achieves his goal.

4) Democrats wonder what the hell happened!

5) Repeat items 1 though 4 above....

[bamaborn]

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the government would be held accountable should a company encounter problems which subsequently affect it's stock value?.

I am all for getting my money back, but I know that's not going to happen. At least with this proposed plan I would be able to own the money I am forced to give in the first place. I would be able to pass it on to future generations. As the plan is now, I don't have any choice in how MY money is allocated. The private account would allow me to choose, to an extent, where my money goes.

I see it is a lesser of two evils.

[bamaborn]

The liberals will stop at nothing to try and stonewall this reform. Democrats have relied on SS as a MAJOR political talking point against Republicans for decades. Imagine the repercussions once Bush FIXES SS. No more patching it up, knowing full and well they aren't really fixing anything, only to ensure that they can come back in a few years and patch it again so that they appear to be earning their keep. Libs are scared, I don't blame them.

[Balding_Eagle]

Bush can follow the normal course, propose the bill, THEN bargain and discuss.

He can, but he knows better. That fact may be one of the reasons he's president and you're not.

[kenavi]

I'm seeking that the White House release its plan.

Are you insinuating that the President is hiding important measures, that he has already decided on, from the public?

He has clearly laid out the broad lines, which seem to give plenty to chew on. Now, Congressmen are free to propose their own recommendations.

[rwfromkansas]

"A worker could earn a higher return through his personal account investments. The Social Security Actuary assumes he will invest in a conservative mix of stocks, corporate bonds, and government securities that would result in a 4.6% real rate of return. In this case, the account would be large enough to provide about $7,000 per year of benefits, so he would have a combined future benefit of $17,000. His combined benefit would be $2,000 per year higher than had he not chosen the account."

$2,000? That's it?

[philetus]

Reality: The President's plan for personal retirement accounts does not have a "claw back."

As soon as a dem gets in office.it will.

[Pride in the USA]

I still say that the only way to solve the SS crisis is to eliminate it altogether. Yes, this would cause major problems for a while, but I want to keep my money out of SS altogether and save, invest or spend it when and how I choose. I think we could grandfather in the citizens who are over 50 years old, and who have already contributed much to their SS fund. We could give back much of what the younger ones have paid in and then dismantle the whole system. If this plan initially results in more debt for the government, then they can start looking at other programs to scale back or eliminate to make up the difference.