Posted on 04/28/2005 3:17:44 PM PDT by fidelio
WASHINGTON - President Bush intends to prod Congress to consider raising Social Security benefits for low-income retirees while curtailing them for others as part of a plan to shore up the program's finances, Republican officials said Thursday in advance of Bush's prime time news conference.
creeeeping socialism, here it comes
Bush the conservative, once again taking money from the people who earn it and putting it into the pockets of people who don't.
Yep.
So my NEGATIVE 1 1/2 percent return I am currently expected to have will be worse.
I expect better from Bush.
There was no means testing when Uncle Sam started taking my money and buying someone else's vote with it. No means testing when its my turn to take it out thank you. I don't care if the feds have to sell every acre of land they still hold and empty Fort Knox.
I'm becoming less and less impressed with President Bush every day. Between immigration, fiscal irresponsibility, and now this...
if true, then Bush's idea will be a very bad day for individual Liberty. I sometimes wonder if he listens too much to his dad and Laura. He sounds like he is wimping out on economic matters. This doesn't sound like Bush of 2 years ago. Socialism is on the march and I see NO way it will be turned back. The liberals scream all day, but they are getting the exact government they desire. Liberty is dying in this once great Republic.
this is raising the cap without raising the cap.
NO NO NO NO NO
What happened? he has democrats working for him?
Darn right. Unfortunately, this is what I feared Socialist Security would wind up being, namely a means tested welfare program.
sad. If true, this will really fire up Rush on Friday. I hope I can listen a little. Bush is turning more socialist as the years go by.
He's the same guy on economic matters he was in 2000, when his top priority was saddling us with a trillion-dollar giveaway from the public purse to pharmaceutical companies.
In short, you got robbed and/or defrauded. Therefore, you are morally justified in robbing/defrauding someone else to "get your money back". Fine moral stance, that.
Well, that's it... The sham is over. They're no longer even trying to make believe that social security is a "safety net," or a even an "insurance program," both of which I've heard it referred to over the years.
Social security is now officially a welfare program... Wait, make that a "Marxist Wealth Distribution Program."
Take money from those who have "more than they need," and give it to those who need it most.
Mark
As usual, FReepers will believe whatever the MSM claims the President "will do" and crucify him for it. Perhaps everyone should wait and see what the President says before go off the deep end.
yes, exactly. It was just Socialist Security. Did anyone ever tell him how successful Chile was at privatizing their SS program? Amazing he only seems to listen to the collectivists in his camp. He is really leaning too left lately.
I understand your sentiment, but it makes reform impossible. True, you and I got screwed by previous generations. That doesn't make it right for us to screw future generations even worse. Social Security has made promises it can't pay for. There are exactly 2 solutions: raise taxes, or cut benefits, and every plan is some combination of these. For supporters of smaller government, the choice should be clear.
Your logic is way off. What I am saying is that the feds have means to pay me - in gold, land, oil in the strategic oil reserve, etc.
I stand corrected. Thanks for reminding me. Maybe we sometimes don't wish to face the reality of just how Socialist Bush is in many of his policies. Government IS the problem. I firmly believe he doesn't see that. For all the good he did with the WOT, his economic/immigration policies will tarnish his legacy. He is definitely no Cleveland.
Bloody hell, free country my ass. The Feds wander off with half your income and they consider that "alright". You know, many socialist countries have similar levels of taxation. The average taxes on income are now 50-60% off the top in many parts of the US.
It doesn't screw future generations for the gov to sell assets to pay me for what they took from me and are now trying to avoid repaying. So what if they don't have cash from current taxes to pay me (and many others who are in the same boat)? They can and should sell federal assets if needed.
To quote Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the king!"
Remember, "the government" doesn't have to follow any of the laws it imposes on us...
If you were to try to set up an "insurance company" that worked like SS, you'd be going to jail. If your internal accounting at any company was set up, and played the same "games" that the government does, you'd be going to jail.
The SCOTUS ruled some time ago that the social security payments you make over the years doesn't go into "your account." As soon as the treasury gets their grubby little paws on the funds, it's their money, not yours. Which is why they can change the rules at any time!
And the very best part is that the only way you can recover your money is to sue the government. But in order to sue the government, you need to get permission first: FROM THE GOVERNMENT!!!
Like I said, "It's good to be the king!"
Mark
remember.
he no longer needs our support.
he is no longer running for office.
he has no 'need' to create any legacy.
there is no downside for HIM, if he left office with all the 'centrist-socialists' loving him, along with the moralist christian right folks... HE Would feel good about himself.
What he may not realize is that he CAN lose all his power in this off term election, and allow the demos to further castrate the party, and conservatism in general... JUST in time to sweep themselves back into power.
in fact, that is what I BELIEVE is guaran-damn-teed to happen... because he just doesn't give a damn.
smaller, less intrusive government, and devolution of power to the states and individuals, was NEVER his intent.
He's a dyed in the wool, religious-socialist, masquerading as conservative, but who no longer feels the need to keep up a charade of FISCAL restraint, REAL and PERMANENT tax change, and deconstructing the federal beast.
Better than gore?
YUP.
The best we could do?
very doubtful.
Damaging us as a nation?
Without a doubt.
Spreading democracy abroad?
yes.
stopping socialism here at home?
No DAMNED way.
I am NOT impressed with what he has done since we gave him more power this last election. He hasn't done anything with it that I wanted him to as of yet. And he won't.
I am well aware that there is a federal court decision which says that the gov doesn't have a specific obligation to pay me social security. What I am saying is that the feds have assets which can and should be used to pay what it owes - under the detrimental reliance doctrine if for no other reason.
I'm with you, they forcfully took my money for years. I want it back.
Not more than I am owed. I just want my money back.
Just because it's the right thing to do, don't bet on the government ever doing it.
Mark
Sometimes I think about not coming to the Free Republic just for this reason. Instead of waiting to hear from the President himself, the Freepers believe what the MSM feeds them and go of the handle and freek out just like the DU folks. Get a hold of yourselves and wait to hear it from the man himself, GEEZ
Too true.
The thing is, that would be an improvement. Right now, it's a welfare program combined with a horrible retirement program (as in, negative rates of return, and when you die you have no assets to pass on). Realistically, we aren't going to let old people starve. There is always going to be some program to redistribute wealth to the elderly poor. But we can make that program as small as possible, by not shoehorning *everyone* into it under the guise of a fraudulent "investment".
Bush the conservative, once again taking money from the people who earn it and putting it into the pockets of people who don't.
-----
Bush is NOT A CONSERVATIVE (not saying you don't realize that!) -- this is not the first time he has proposed REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH as a solution or a pacifier. This is NOT GOOD. Bush is setting up the GOP for a major political fall not only in 2008 but even 2006. SOCIALISM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA!!!! This, combined with his non-participative stand on illegal immigration could really open the path for a third party, and put a raving MARXIST in the White House in 2008. HE IS BACKSTABBING HIS CONSERVATIVE SUPPORTERS.
I agree. All I want from the govt is to pay me back what I put into SS with 12% interest compounded annually. They can pay me back with the oil royalties they get from govt land. Fair enough.
I think all rich politicians that have served since 1960 should have to pay back the $26 trillion they SPENT
“Darn right. Unfortunately, this is what I feared Socialist Security would wind up being, namely a means tested welfare program.”
Social Security is, and always was, a welfare program. It was never a savings scheme. A change like the one mentioned would make that very clear.
"There was no means testing when Uncle Sam started taking my money"
And there's no crisis now.
It was a myth, a crisis created by the brokerage houses that wanted to push through pseudo-privatization.
But Bush staked "all his political capital" on SS. Can he just give up on it now? No, he got to "do" something, so we get this.
Agonizing.
"Republican officials" is the best fabricated source the AP can come up with?
The President has never hinted at anything remotely like this
Can you imagine the uproar here if Clinton had done any of those things. We'd be going nuts for days.
Mark my words; in addition to means testing the amount of income which is subject to SS tax will also be increased. He may not talk about it tonight, but it'll be in the final mix.
Progressive indexing is STILL better off for the vast majority of America when you combine it with personal accounts than either a flat out indexing change, or increasing taxes.
The President is doing what he can, and he is trying to be realistic. Let us face the fact that we are up against a mainstream media and a Democratic Party that will demagogue, fear-monger, and obstruct this issue to death, just like they've been trying to do. People are sheep, and they will follow the Democratic Party's fear-mongering as a result.
Hell, many of you are starting to sound like sheep now too. Progressive indexing is proposed- so what? It helps fund that transition deficit, and we'd get the added benefit of having a personal account. I'd bet the upper class does better with those personal accounts, simply because they're smarter with finances than your average idiot, who seems to be scared of anything to do with investing.
Relax, people. The President is trying to do a good thing here, the least we could do is back the guy up on it, and then have the House of Representatives "conservatize" whatever bill is presented into something we like better.
It was a myth, a crisis created by the brokerage houses that wanted to push through pseudo-privatization.
LOL! Black helocopters hovering, Shermy? Sheesh.
There's a press conference tonight. A press conference is an opportunity to present a plan. It is common practice to circulate notes to reporters before a press conference so they can prepare their reports.
If he does this, I will be disappointed.
Damn right!. I think we need to turn at least one branch of the government over to the RATS. Gridlock is far preferable to what Bush is doing now.
Why bother.. They won't listen to reason..
Yes, Rush will find some way to support Bush's new proposal. Rush always does.
Not "average taxes" but not utter non-sense. If you add the percentage that you employer pays for social security to your gross income (which morally it is) AND you live in California or New York AND you own a house with a high monthly payment AND you make the right amount and get whacked with AMT then my friend you are mighty close to 50%. And we haven't even included property, sales, gas, car and other taxes.
Give it a rest. It was either Bush or the Vietnam hero.
The man never misses an opportunity to disappoint his base, due to his socialist-spending bent.
though having majorities in both houses is unwilling to bust the balls necessary to:
We don't need speeches.
ACTION NOW. Using the meat cleaver if necessary to WIN at home. He can topple foreign governments with ease... but moving us in the conservative direction that we expect, seems to cause him insurmountable pain.
Why waste time listening to him IF all he is going to do is tell us what he wants to do. We already know... more socialism.
If you add the part counted for social security, then you have to say your earnings are 107%, not 100%. As you move into the higher income tax brackets, your OASDI as a share of income declines from 15% because you pass the $90k cap. The income tax you pay to New York or California (9% is about the highest) is deductible from your federal taxes, so it's really more like 6%, lower in other states. Ditto property taxes.
If you find yourself paying AMT, you won't be paying a 35% rate anyway, but a maximum of 28% I believe. And I don't see what a mortgage has to do with any of this because the government doesn't claim that money.
No one is paying 50-60% of their income in taxes, not even close, not unless they had a miserable year with stock options and got royally reamed by the AMT. We are fortunate not to be taxed as much as those socialist hellholes in Europe and we should recognize that. It's foolish to think we're starting off from the same tax position as France or Sweden or the U.K., we aren't even close.
"to each... according to his or her need, from others according to their means." Who said that?
the man is a redistributionist religious socialist... and that he claimed to be a conservative, power devolving, christian is testimony to our LACK of understanding WHAT WORDS REALLY MEAN.
W is no conservative.
Smaller less intrusive government, devolving power to the several states or the people, is abhorrent to him... which is testified by his actions.
We are now the pseudo-capitalist clone of soviet communism.
gridlock is indeed good.
the idea that socialist/communist redistribution of wealth is okay as long as there are no blow jobs in the oval office, I find ridiculous.
Unbelievable.
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.