Live Coverage

[Cheri]

Its obvious that they ask the questions about Iraq. Its because the Iraq war is more important than s.s. itself... There are American soldiers fighting over there for you Cheri, you might wanna give some sympathaies to them instead of complaining about how reporters go off topic.

I believe you haven't watched it, because You think I am complaining about the troops instead of showing sympathies? The questions were been asked before from day one why Bush invented Iraq, same questions were answered from day one too? My question is why repeated it, When we all know why we are in Iraq. Bush said, we are winning the war on terror. We know that don't we? We also know that Bush is helping people rebuild their economy, giving them demarcates freedom to vote and etc. We know that too. Why repeat the same thing when we already been told million of times the same thing. The major point of the topic was about Social Security, That is why he was on live.

 

[Reba]

... If I am a father and the army grabbed my son out of my arm and send him over to the country that have no WMD and 'dictator' is completely out of the game. ..

Huh? The army has not "grabbed" anyone's son out of a father's arms to send him to war. The U.S. Army is 100% volunteer.

 

[Vance]

Huh? The army has not "grabbed" anyone's son out of a father's arms to send him to war. The U.S. Army is 100% volunteer.

Many soldiers signed against their parents' wishes. Army recruiters said nothing but lies (example: "great benefits" which it is not. "You will come back in one piece" Definitely not [yes, they did said that to some kids]. List go on). Like it or not, it is technically 'grabbing' to my own eyes.

Cheri, I read the Progressive magazine this morning. It mentioned that America is facing a serious crisis: Healthcare. Far crisis than Social Security ever will be. Over 40 millions of Americans don't have the healthcare. Over 15 millions of American children don't have the healthcare. The numbers are increasing annual. Now that is a real and serious crisis and yet Bush or majority-republicans Congress didn't do anything about it. Even worse, they cutted Medicaid which it hurt these non-healthcare children & adults even more. What the idiots we have in White House. [edit] That's what I don't understand... Social Security can wait. It is not even crisis. There is a new term for Bush's plan, it is called, "SS Piratization". I like that term. [/edit]

 

[Vance]

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/opinion/02krugman.html?oref=login

Sure enough, a close look at President Bush's proposal for "progressive price indexing" of Social Security puts the lie to claims that it's a plan to increase benefits for the poor and cut them for the wealthy. In fact, it's a plan to slash middle-class benefits; the wealthy would barely feel a thing.

[snip]

The average worker - average pay now is $37,000 - retiring in 2075 would face a cut equal to 10 percent of pre-retirement income. Workers earning 60 percent more than average, the equivalent of $58,000 today, would see benefit cuts equal to almost 13 percent of their income before retirement.

But above that level, the cuts would become less and less significant. Workers earning three times the average wage would face cuts equal to only 9 percent of their income before retirement. Someone earning the equivalent of $1 million today would see benefit cuts equal to only 1 percent of pre-retirement income.

In short, this would be a gut punch to the middle class, but a fleabite for the truly wealthy.

Beyond that, it's a good bet that benefits for the poor would eventually be cut, too.

It's an adage that programs for the poor always turn into poor programs. That is, once a program is defined as welfare, it becomes a target for budget cuts.

Indeed.

 

[ITPjohn]

New Social Security plan

Yes, I watched it. Social Security is an important topic for me because I am closer to retirement age. But I am not fully depending on it.

Here's something that a friend sent me. I bet you'd like to have a retirement plan this nice. I know I don't.

Our Senators and Congressmen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare stature in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So many years ago they voted in their own retirement. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this: when they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. It may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of these dignitaries. For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.

Younger dignitaries, who retire at an earlier age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into every payday until we retire (an amount that is matched by our employer), we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. Put the Senators and Congressmen into the Social Security plan with the rest of us. Then sit back.... and watch how fast they would fix it.

 

[Vance]

ITPjohn, you know, I found that email quite interesting... and I eventually forget until I stumbled on this site (thanks to one of my friend) and want to show you. Here it is:

The author of this collection of lies, half-truths and false assumptions wants to "plant the seed." But what seed? If he or she is referring to the seed of discontent, the popularity of letters like this one prove that flower is already blooming!

Nevertheless, The claim that congressmen do not pay into Social Security and, instead, draw outrageous pensions from the general fund is total fiction. Congressmen have paid into Social Security since 1983, when a change in public law dissolved the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).

Likewise, they do not "continue to draw their same pay, until they die." Instead, they pay into the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) and, upon retirement from service, draw a pension based on several factors, including years of service and age. Earlier versions used Bill Bradley and Hilary Clinton as examples (also fabricated). Break this Chain!

Source: http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/pensions.html

For more explanations, you also can check this link too: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

 

[Taylor]

Of course a lot of it depends on who you ask.

Link

Democrats have resisted President Bush's proposed changes to Social Security, arguing its problems are far off. The program's top analyst says they're flat wrong.

Stephen Goss, the nonpartisan chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, says the nation will face a pinch in 2009 when excess payroll taxes that have been flowing into the program start to decline, halting the growth of surplus money that Congress has been tapping to fund other government programs.

It's a warning that Bush is counseling fellow Republicans to heed if they want to avoid blowback from voters.

Goss and the Social Security Administration project the program can continue paying currently scheduled benefits until 2041, using the IOUs that Congress has been giving the program since it started spending the excess tax revenue in the 1980s.

Lawmakers would likely have to decide between budget cuts or tax increases that will only grow more severe each year until 2017, when all the surplus revenues end and the program begins paying out more in benefits than it generates in payroll taxes. That shift would force Social Security to begin cashing in the IOUs, further increasing the nation's financial challenges.

"While there is no question that these securities will be redeemed when needed, as is now the case with the Medicare Trust Fund, this redemption will require the federal government to increase taxes, lower expenditures or issue publicly held debt in amounts equal to the net redemptions by the trust funds," Goss told the House Way and Means Social Security subcommittee on Tuesday.

Regardless, Social Security will be in a bind. IMO, it will happen sooner than later (I give it just a few years). The problem is I really haven't found any solutions to the problem. Everyone will stand up and condemn Bush, but what solutions are out there?

I for one believe that the money in Social Security should not have been touched to begin with. That money should have remained seperate and never borrowed from. I found a good read in regards to how the Social Security Trust Fund works.

 

[Vance]

Regardless, Social Security will be in a bind. IMO, it will happen sooner than later (I give it just a few years). The problem is I really haven't found any solutions to the problem. Everyone will stand up and condemn Bush, but what solutions are out there?

Democrat Plans a Social Security Bill

WASHINGTON, May 13 (AP) - Breaking with party leaders, a Democratic congressman plans to introduce Social Security legislation, saying his first commitment is to his constituents.

The lawmaker, Representative Robert Wexler of Florida. said on Friday: "I have the largest amount of Social Security recipients of any Democrat anywhere in the country. My allegiance to seniors is greater than my allegiance to the Democratic Party."

The proposed legislation, which Mr. Wexler plans to outline on Monday in Florida, calls for a 6 percent tax on all income above the current $90,000 cap. Three percent would be paid by workers and 3 percent paid by their employers.

The measure would not require any cut in scheduled benefits or any increase in the retirement age, and it does not provide for private accounts.

Although President Bush has pledged not to expand the payroll tax, the White House praised Mr. Wexler's proposal because no Democrat had previously offered an alternative to Mr. Bush's plan. The president's proposal calls for creating private investment accounts and a new method for calculating future growth in benefits.

"I would be surprised if the president were anything but pleased there is another voice with the courage to stand up and put a proposal on the table," said Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman.

Mr. Wexler's bill would also reinstitute rules for the federal budget requiring that any tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending be paid for either by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. The requirement expired at the end of 2002.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/p...afb616ad4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


Americanized conservative kept crowing that Democrats don't have the plan... now Democrats do. But a $10,000 question is: Will Bush dismiss the Wexler's bill and still obsessed over his disastrously flawed "privatized" bill or will he finally realize that his "privatized" bill is completely disaster and nod at Wexler's bill? It remains to be seen.

There is another problem which comes up slowly but surely. It is IRA/401k plan. Nas' mother (she is a businesswoman and owner) warned me to not invest the money in 401k few weeks ago and will provide the information as why Nas and I shouldn't. Anyway, you can check this out: http://mumonno.blogspot.com/2005/05/bubble-for-rich-people-beginning-to.html

I guess we will find out more within few months/years about IRA/401k. I wonder, if 401k is no longer 'secure' as Nas' mother warned me and Nas, what's next for us to invest for our future retirement plan? (assuming that America is still America in 20-30 years later)