Posted on 02/19/2005 9:11:45 PM PST by CurlyDave
No group of Americans would be affected more by President Bush (news - web sites)'s Social Security (news - web sites) plan than those earning the least. Just ask 46-year-old Brent Allen.
Allen, who recently lost his job at a Massachusetts paper mill, faces a retirement financed exclusively by the money he has been paying into the Social Security system for the better part of 30 years. Like nearly half the U.S. population, he has no pension or savings to speak of. And his brief flirtations with the stock market have largely flopped.
So Allen, who lives on less than $15,000 a year in disability payments from Social Security and income from his live-in girlfriend, is distrustful of Bush's plan to allow workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
While I am sympathetic to his circumstance, I wonder what he has to say that might be of any value in formulating policy.
What you have have to understand is the Post has a generic headline form that reads "Poorest Face Most Risk on ____" It's up to individual editors to fill in that last blank each day of a Republican Presidency.
I cannot believe the media inspired hysteria over a lousy 6% of your total SS payments!! I would like the option to go into the private accounts 100%%.
I thought the standard Post headline was
"GOP cuts _____, women and children hit hardest"
[No group of Americans would be affected more by President Bush...]
...and Blah Blah Blah.
Hmmm...he better get a richer girlfriend.
It is standard, but they've only been using it for about 35 years now, so it has plenty of mileage left. They're so unpredictable, aren't they?
This bloke worked for 30 years and never paid into a pension scheme?
Oh well...
...too bad.
I'm 33 next month, and have been paying into a private pension fund for the last 12 years.
Until they all opt out of theirs these pukes can pound salt.
I am not the least bit interested in how they feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel. Screw them and the MSM they rode in on. And screw the road they rode in on.
Ever since I was 16 some 27 years ago and started paying into SS the older guys at work would laugh at me and say that there will be no SS by the time I retire.
Yes, thank you "Old Media" for shilling for the Democrats and their "do-nothing" philosophy.
Or pimp her out for some extra brewski money. The MSM loves sorry people like Brent Allen to score political points against eeevil, heartless Republicans. However, to thinking Americans who plan ahead for their retirements, Brent Allen may as well walk around with a sandwich board which says, "I'm Brent Allen and I'm a Fool".
So was he laid off, or did he go on disability -- which is it?
"Allen, who recently lost his job at a Massachusetts paper mill"
"So Allen, who lives on less than $15,000 a year in disability payments from Social Security"
If he went on disability, he will continue to get it forever, whatever he is getting now, adjusted for inflation. Disability benefits won't be reduced with Social Security reform.
"Under the Bush plan, low-income workers would be required to purchase an annuity, which pays a fixed stream of money until the person dies, or set up an alternative way that keeps them above the poverty level until death using their personal account funds. The administration said such mandates are needed to keep seniors from falling into poverty by emptying out their accounts upon retirement."
Sounds like this would take care of the low income people. So what's the problem?
It's time for everyone to start taking personal responsibility for their retirement planning.
MEET "THE POOR" in the US:
Understanding Poverty and Economic Inequality in the United States
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm
The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:
Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent of America's poor own a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent of America's poor own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children in America today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. Although this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists, and politicians.
I'm not poor and i'm not rich. I've been poor (when i went to skool-college) and barely had $ for food and gas and working as much as i could. I don't feel sorry for poor people. I didn't want anybody feeling sorry for me.
The Democrats just LOVE to use their excuses on how the Republicans are so bad for poor people,black people,babies-(for wanting to stop abortion), hispanic people, jewish people, europeans, tsunami victims, SUVs, enviroment, cloning, the UN, Space, the solar system, "endangered species" etc etc..... If everything a demoRat said was true about us, There would be a fortune selling bridges.
A wonderful example of Old Media objectivity. Some guy who has never saved a dime in his entre life is now an "expert" on SS Reform.
While I am sympathetic to his circumstance, I wonder what he has to say that might be of any value in formulating policy.
>>>
They've turned America in to fat, dumb and happy sheep, now this...
It's NOT MANDATORY! What is to fear is you are afraid to invest? It is also not 'open investment'. . .you can only choose what Government chooses first. . .(that should make these folks HAPPY!) They do not have to choose ANYthing!
"It's not mandatory!"
This fact has been conveniently been ignored by liberals because it negates their argument against SS reform (by a Republican president).
They'd back it in a heartbeat if it were being proposed by a democrapic president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.