There are many articles out there in Computer land, where it states Bush has tried several times to change, or eliminate SS, and RIF and many other quality benefits for the elderly and underprivileged children,whether they are lies or Nancy is lying, I don't have a clue,but I am glad it was stopped.

something he was wanting to do was change social security to invest in 401Kplan~ I don't understand the procedure for that..

here is only one news report out of many

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050407/news_1n7socsec.html




Report says Bush plan could eliminate Social Security pay

By James Kuhnhenn
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE

April 7, 2005

WASHINGTON – Retirees eventually could rely entirely on profits from individual investment accounts and get no traditional Social Security checks if they participate in a Social Security plan like the one President Bush proposes, according to a nonpartisan congressional report issued yesterday.

Higher-wage workers would be the first to see their defined-benefit check replaced by the investment accounts, the Congressional Research Service reported. Ultimately, all workers who opt for a Bush-like plan would rely on those investments for their Social Security benefits and get no traditional ones, the CRS report said.

This would happen, the report explained, because the Bush plan would reduce traditional Social Security payments by an amount equal to what a worker put into a private account, plus interest. Eventually, the private accounts would grow so large they would cancel out the government pension.

Democrats pounced on the report as evidence that Bush intends to do away with Social Security as Americans now know it – a guaranteed benefit financed through payroll taxes.

"It reinforces what we have been saying," said Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the leading House Democratic expert on Social Security. "Essentially, you have a replacement of Social Security with investments that for many, many people would be very, very risky."

Bush's plan is thin on details. The analysis by the nonpartisan research service had to rely on financial assumptions that Bush has not entirely embraced or has backed away from.

For instance, the agency expects that under Bush's plan, Social Security benefits, which are now indexed to increases in wages, would be adjusted to increases in prices, which rise more slowly. But most plans circulating in Washington recommend a hybrid index that would allow lower-income workers to benefit from a wage-based index. That would alter the CRS conclusions.

What's more, Bush has acknowledged that his plan would have to add other measures, which he has not specified, to address Social Security's long-term solvency problems – measures that the researchers did not consider.

"This isn't the president's plan," said White House spokesman Trent Duffy. He said CRS assumed that higher-wage workers would invest the maximum allowable for much of their working lives – a circumstance that could be achieved by only a "minuscule number of workers."

While Democrats say that would signal the end of a venerable retirement system constructed under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the result CRS predicts is consistent with the vision behind Bush's plan.

"Conceptually, that's precisely what the president wants," Duffy said. "But the reality is that under the personal account proposal that the president has proposed, a large proportion of the retirement benefit would still come from the traditional side of the system."

Bush has proposed that workers born since 1950 be allowed to invest up to 4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent Social Security wage tax that workers share with their employers. That amount – capped at $1,000 for high-wage workers – would be placed in government-prescribed portfolios. The remainder of the tax would flow into Social Security.

Under Bush's plan, retirees would have their traditional, defined benefit reduced to offset the wage tax they invested.

"Bush has proposed that workers born since 1950 be allowed to invest up to 4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent Social Security wage tax that workers share with their employers. That amount – capped at $1,000 for high-wage workers – would be placed in government-prescribed portfolios. The remainder of the tax would flow into Social Security." /// How does this in ANY WAY "eliminate" the SS system? Hmmmm? Firstly, it would have been totally voluntary. Low income workers would simply ignore it.But if they did participate, they would have their benefits only SLIGHTLY reduced, thus saving SSA some costs. Secondly, the whole anti-Bush approach was to strike fear in retirees over a plan that would have affected hardly anyone at all and was limited to $1000 per worker IF THEY ELECTED TO USE IT! Thirdly, this plan was for high income earners seeking a way to invest in our future rather than recieive guaranteed full benefits because THEY WOULDN'T need those full benefits anyway. I have more than a clue. Nancy Pelosi LIED when she said Bush tried to eliminate the SS system and the clues are in the article you posted. All you have to do is be able to read and do simple arithmetic.

"There are many articles out there in Computer land, where it states Bush has tried several times to change, or eliminate SS, and RIF and many other quality benefits for the elderly and underprivileged children,whether they are lies or Nancy is lying, I don't have a clue,but I am glad it was stopped." // Of coures you're glad. The merits of any plan escape you but so what? Just like Nancy P., the objective is to vex Bush, not offer alternatives to a few high income earners and save the taxpayer a few dollars. Oh, hell no.

According to zoominfo, a resume search service with NO political affiliations: Board Memberships and Affiliations
No membership or affiliation information is available.


Certifications
No certification information is available.


Education
No education information is available.


Biography
No biography information is available........(Perhaps a "ghost" Bush basher?)

Bush wants to privatize Social Security. Why not just lift the FICA cap?
ASK THIS | December 13, 2004

Author William Greider says eliminating the cap is an obvious, fair solution to any long-term problems Social Security may run into. Shouldn't reporters be doing the arithmetic and asking about that?



William Greider, writing in the Nation Magazine's March 4th, 2004, issue, attacked Alan Greenspan for using scare tactics about Social Security in testimony before Congress. Nine months have passed since Greider's article but his arguments are even more relevant now, with Bush having begun his second term by pushing privatization.

"Here is the truth," Greider wrote: "Social Security is not in deficit, not now and not for at least the next forty years. The trust fund will have a surplus next year of $1.8 trillion. In 2011 when, Greenspan warns, the baby boomers will start retiring in large numbers, the surplus will be $3.2 trillion. These stored savings, plus future payroll-tax revenue, are sufficient to pay all retirees the current level of benefits through 2042, according to the fund's very conservative actuaries."

Greider proposed what he termed a "simple and just way" to deal with Social Security's fiscal problems after 2042: "Eliminate the income cap of $87,000 on FICA taxes so that every highly paid worker, even Bill Gates, would pay the full freight. Since wealthy earners have benefited disproportionately from tax reduction, this would be their personal contribution to restoring fiscal order. Why doesn't someone ask the Fed chairman about that? If Democrats were more attentive to their constituencies, they would be aggressively promoting this reasonable alternative to Greenspan's sordid double talk."



"
Here is a radical idea. So Bush wants to turn this society into an "ownership" society. Since that obviously means that everyone will be on there own,Here is my plan. Bush wants to give young workers a "choice" as to where their S.S. money goes. As it stands right now, S.S. is an involuntary tax. Bush wants you to have the choice of it going into S.S. or diverting it to unscrupulous brokers on Wall St. How about a third choice. How about an option of keeping the money yourself and neither gets there grubby hands on my money? Ever heard that option ever talked about? Here are these rich corporate-fascist warmongers debating over what is best for my money. If bush is a true conservative, he would allow people to exercise this option. Since he is actually the most LIBERAL President that this country has ever seen, it wouldn't surprise me if he just does away with S.S. and replaces it with Wall ST investments. I guess it would be OK, as long as I can invest all my money in Halliburton. "the OWNERSHIP SOCIETY"...what an "Orwellian Double-Speaking Joke"...The only problem is I'm not laughing...But they are, ...all the way to the bank.


my words/here I know this is old hat, and Bush is gone,but as i said there are many articles stating that Bush did want to change or eliminate SS

The way I see it, he didn't eliminate SS if it indeed was true he considered it(which I seriously doubt) so what the hell is the purpose of posting this, get over the Bush bashing, he is gone...

Agreed, on the Bush bashing, we don't need to go down that avenue again. I'm not saying it was purposely meant to bash just saying postings along those lines have been traveled before. Bush is gone and we have a new sheriff in town, and his name is Barack Obama.

meemoon wrote:It's funny. I never said computers weren't useful or necessary. Of course they're both. But none of the "believers" will address the simple fact that the advent of the computer in the classroom is accompanied with a drastic drop in academic performsnce. Instead, we are told that this phenomena is meaningless. That, somehow, our kids are "smarter". Smarter at what? Video games? I do all my banking on my computer and I'm grateful for it's convenience,but I know how to manage money,do math, and generally know a good deal when I see one. Young people now obviously don't. Thus their poor speculations in markets,mismanagement of funds, and inability to read and write above the 5th. grade level. Funny how a religious belief, "computerism", can delude so many.

Ok Moon, you stick to your books and I'll continue my new religion "computerism", I'll see how deluded I can get in the process, sounds like fun!!..

runawayhorses wrote:Agreed, on the Bush bashing, we don't need to go down that avenue again. I'm not saying it was purposely meant to bash just saying postings along those lines have been traveled before. Bush is gone and we have a new sheriff in town, and his name is Barack Obama.

I also agree, Tyler..

no bashing intended I was just responding to Memoon,who mentioned Social Security , Bush, and Nancy`on SS but I get the picture~ no more ..

SSC wrote:

rosco 357 wrote:oh PS: my grandkids do not even have computers in the classroom but do have a class for computers, so i never have even thought the basics were being left behind, i know my daughter works hard into the night with helping with home work and they dont even have a computer.. maybe its not so wide spread, but i actually dont know,

I have 4 computers, my 12 yr. old granddaughter has homework every night involving a computer, plus research during the day, but heaven help her if you give her an encyclopedia and tell her to look up something . She carries a 4.0 which is a straight A. The only light in the tunnel is Math is still done on paper and calculators are not allowed in the class.
The state GED program does nothing on computer, it is all written, even the final test, and once they complete it they have a diploma equal to 12 years in school, but alot more common sence.
I agree to a point Tyler made the world is run by computers now, but one storm, one blackout , one terrorist attack and poof goes access. They are very vulnerable to not only mother nature but nut jobs hacking systems, just like microsoft is dealing with now.
I learned during Katrina when ALL the cell phones went down, how easy it is to become isolated, then running generator power it is not safe to use a computer, the voltage is not steady enough and surges are prone to happen.
The world for sure is in the age of expanding technology, but good old common horse sence can never be replaced with a mechanical wizard.
The teachers of today are far more schooled than in any other generation, but you throw 30 kids in one class and the individual teaching is out the window. Without the help of parents during homework a kid will sink.

just wanted to say, when i was in school elementary and jr high and highschool, best i remember we had 30 plus students to a class, lol so i guess i thought that was the norm, my grandkids will be going to private schools, my oldest grandaughter already is, they do go to elementary public, but as soon as they hit the 6th grade my grandaughter started in a christian private school and her brother will follow in a year, my other daughter as i may have said my grandson that is the youngest only almost 2 she put him on a waiting list for preschool at another private school, and it goes throught the `12th grade, she plans on him attending highschool there, if she like it.. i know some family members have graduated from the one my oldest grandaughter is going to, but i dont know the class sizes or how much computer work is done there, she does not have a computer, her brother does but for games only and they are not on any online service..

There is a school on the Miss. coast..a private catholic school they will only post homework on line, the students either have to have a home computer or go to the very small public library stand in line and wait for one to be accessible. All of my granddaughters extra credit homework is only posted online, each teacher has a website on Teacherweb.com...this site lets you pull up any school, in any state, pick the school, pick which teacher you want and click on the classroom.
As much as I dislike the dependence on computers, in today's school systems they are a lifeline to education.

1. My article was about Pelosi and there will be more as she lies her way through her job. I won't mention "you know who" unless the bashers or Pelosi indulge in more nonsense. 2. My comments were based on comments made to me by Hoss and bp; two guys who's opinions I respect. My dad was in construction and we moved a LOT so my experiences at school were varied. I went to school while in grades 1-7 with about 20-25 students per class between 1954-61. High school, grades 8-11 was a very different experience. 3. Tyler, I have you beat. I delude myself with boxed wine.

lol well this one is baptist, i dont guess the teachers use that,or she has other options ,, because my grandaughter does not have internet, and i know they dont use it, she is on the basket ball team, she is well into sports as she for many years has played softball, i dont know if she will play for the youth teams here at teh park as before, or at the school as this is her first year, many nites they are playing a basketball game with ohter schools, lol, just teasing about being baptist, lol, it is but no special meaning to it,trust me my daughter does not have time for a library, she works all day. cooks supper, gets homework and like i said many nights takes her to the basket ball game and is worn out at night, thanks and take care,

On Lou Dobbs airing now , they just discussed Pelosi and Obama's problems rising to the top of the cream. Internal strife rearing its ugly head already....

There should have never been a cap on FICA deducts but that was part of the original plan. I had only one "rich uncle" and he never applied for SS bennies. Said it wasn't worth the trouble. "Privatization" was NEVER anyone's goal for the SS system. Just a very limited program for wealthy people like uncle Bob. It was, as Greenspan indicated, just a fear factor. It was clearly stated by many in the "you know who" admin. that this limited investment alternative program would in no way help avoid the eventual imbalance that will occur in SS funding. That is a problem that has yet to be addressed by ANY administration.

i heard hints of that , a few days ago, as i have posted the house and senate, as we all know are a different animal with equal powers, he has a mandate of sorts, but still this will be interesting to watch it play out, for our sake and our jobs i want things to work, maybe in a few days things will settle down, he is good at changing ppls minds but ole nancy is tough.. im gone nite take care

"On Lou Dobbs airing now , they just discussed Pelosi and Obama's problems rising to the top of the cream. Internal strife rearing its ugly head already...." /// Obama is smart enough to hide any extreme proposals he may have. Clinton learned to play ball quick enough. Pelosi reached her office ONLY because the Dems suddenly reached a majority,not because of any real qualifications she may have. Unless she learns the game better,she will eventually become an embarrasment. (Like Dean still is)

meemoon wrote:There should have never been a cap on FICA deducts but that was part of the original plan. I had only one "rich uncle" and he never applied for SS bennies. Said it wasn't worth the trouble. "Privatization" was NEVER anyone's goal for the SS system. Just a very limited program for wealthy people like uncle Bob. It was, as Greenspan indicated, just a fear factor. It was clearly stated by many in the "you know who" admin. that this limited investment alternative program would in no way help avoid the eventual imbalance that will occur in SS funding. That is a problem that has yet to be addressed by ANY administration.

yep moon correct me if im wrong, was not the last change, the change to me and a big group having to wait till 66 to retire with full benefits???? i have the age schedule, but i can retire at 62 with 5 percent less than it use to be when it was 65 retirement age for all, i learned as my boss is going to do this, he is in the 66 full benefit also, but ppl can still get medicare at 65 and not have to wait till 66, for that, and gypsys post i think is correct as i posted the part a month or more ago, that social security is solvent till like 2042 or a tad more,, even concidering everything, but i agree on lifting the caps . before raising teh age again, or raising the middle income fica tax, maybe its just me not wanting anymore taken away, but i think raising the cap. is the lesser of the evils, take care

I have been drawing SS since I was 62, and my medicare when I turned 65

I have been posting for 5 years now and for 5 years I've lamented the incredible cowardice of all the admins refusal to address the viability of the SS system. I've always said the politicians will cut benefits instead of raise FICA deducts for the simple reason that there are many more taxpayers than SSA recipients. Well, as Roscoe pointed out and my brother was told in a letter he got from SSA, they effectively cut benefits by increasing the years required to get full benefits. But it is a rational approach in that people are healthier longer than they were when the rules were first set. So, what's next? The investment alternative plan,although harmless, was stupid politically. It would have benefitted few (if any), did nothing to add to SSA's treasury. and gave ammunition to fear mongers like Pelosi. I think they will raise the age again but they can't keep doing so forever. There wont be enough 90 year olds left able to work to help at all. The question remains: Who will bite the bullet? Who will say we will have to raise FICA deductions? It was liberal Democrats who took the padlock off the SS funds so they could fund LBJ's "great society". Will they have the courage to bite that bullet? I doubt it.

meemoon wrote:I have been posting for 5 years now and for 5 years I've lamented the incredible cowardice of all the admins refusal to address the viability of the SS system.

I'm assuming you mean the 'presidents administration' and not the forums administrators where you posted at for 5 years, becuase it is not the duty or responsibility of a forum admin to address SS or anything else. I know plenty of forums where you never see or hear the admin, only the moderators, btw where is Figi??...lmao

I know you meant presidents admins just kidding.

Exactly right. This site is run too well to be part of any government opweration.

now that I can totally agree on`