Posted on 11/12/2002 4:54:41 AM PST by SJackson
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:47:28 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Soon to be former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt was prescient about one thing this election year: In September he predicted that last week's results would be "a referendum on Social Security." It was, and the reformers won.
For the second straight election. Running on personal retirement accounts didn't hurt George W. Bush in 2000, and this year it didn't hurt those stalwart Congressional candidates willing to campaign on the idea despite economic anxiety and corporate scandals. Maybe it's time for Democrats to realize they aren't going to win back their majorities by recycling their scare-Grandma campaigns from 1964. That's what they and their labor allies tried this year, to little avail.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The purposes of this bill are:
1) it clearly acknowledges that the US government has an obligation to provide current and almost retirees with the benefits that have been “promised”. We guarantee that we will make good on that obligation. Since we have no intention of ever taking these benefits anyway, WHY NOT MAKE IT A LAW?
2) Politically- it takes this scare-tactic away from Democratic campaigns—they can no longer scare old people every election that a vote for GOP threatens to take away their monthly check. THEIR CHECKS ARE GUARANTEED.
3) It allows Bush to open the needed dialog on Soc Sec Reform for younger and middle-aged people, without the usual charges that the Republicans are trying to starve old people and gut Soc Security. THIS WILL SIMPLIFY NEEDED REFORM.
President Bush should immediately push for this or similar bill to be passed by Congress. This bill is very simple.
It should be presented as “This is the first step in a comprehensive review of Social Security that will guarantee that the system will not be changed in a way that will hurt people already on the current system, or those who are close to being eligible.”
What do you FReepers think about this idea?
RobFromGa
Make that 1994.
Social Security is the biggest scam. They are no help to the woman who stays home to care for her children. How would you like it to get your statement only to be told you're 4 credits short of being able to qualify for SS benefits? How long do I have to work now to earn those credits?
If I'd had the money in a private account earning interest from the time I started working, I could retire now just on the money they collected from me and refuse to give back!
 |
Bingo. |
When I'm forced to retire in 2015, I'll receive a whopping $534.18 a month. I get sick to my stomach when I ballpark how much dough I'd be rolling in if all my "contributions" (love that word) went into private investment.
Wanna see how much you'll get from this socialist Ponzi scheme when you retire?? Click here...
It’s vital that be part of a comprehensive plan, and probably more than ten years protection. However as an independent step, it gives the Dems a substantial chunk of the population to scare.
I think it’s an issue GWB can address if he does it is a substantial, comprehensive way, stressing private accounts as a component of Social Security, along with a guaranteed (lower) payment for younger workers.
Ain't Big Government grand?
Sounds like a plan to me, Rob. Excellent.
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.