Why is Bush targeting Social Security?

It isn't clear to me as to why he wants to reform this? What is he getting out of it?

I'm paraphrasing something Randi Rhodes stated yesterday.

"businesses" that siphon money off the stream of taxpayer revenue. That's why they're either in politics or why they buy politicians. To give them access to that stream of money.

Think Halliburton, taxpayer funded baseball fields, Medicare drug bill etc. but on an even larger scale.

Notice that they don't do any business where they invest their own money, work really hard, and face competition doing business with customers who have a choice.

You've got the gangsters' M.O. down.

the funds will get out of it. It's the old saying, Follow the Money.

Little Cowboy thinks he has the "political capital" to make his "bold initiative". Not to mention the huge windfall it would be for his buddies on Wall Street. It's all about socializing the costs and privatizing the gain.

Little Cowboy... a perfect description.

the guy is nothing but ego

this is his chance to make this country anew in HIS image AND give something back to the poor old investment community (Rangers and Pioneers)

Able to be undone by the next administration?

It is as I thought. The Government has spent the money and not invested the surplus. If Bush continues pushing and starts getting somewhere with this (think Iraq and how unplausible that war seemed when he started beating the war drums) The Dems should find their brass balls and they should start mentioning WHY the surplus wasn't invested to begin with.

That's why the surplus wasn't invested. You know the rich need luxury vacation homes(multiple vacation homes) luxury cars,yachts,Lear jets, etc., more then the working class and disabled need their SS benefits. I am sick of the greed of some in this Country. Where do they get off thinking they are entitled to whatever they want at the expense of the majority? They sacrifice nothing while holding their hands out for more. GREEDY a$$hole$!

google dominionism, for example:

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

Imagine what would happen for his constituents if they got their hands on that much money.

What do you think the possibilities are if trillions of dollars all of a sudden came available to the private sector?

Think about it. This reform could redefine wealth.

The boomer retirement puts a huge 20 year downward pressure on the market as boomers unload 401Ks and IRAs to pay for their retirement. So one solution is to force people to buy into this shitty market via the SS piratization scam as a way of keeping the market afloat as the boomer tsunami washes over it.

from the real problems with the country.

the church will take care of the right believers, and the rest can eat dogfood or starve. It's unholy to have SS. Charity extends only to God's children, not all the others.

i think they will need the money in the near future when the world starts dumping the dollar for other currencies. china and europe are by passing the united states in trade agreements around the world--eu recognizing cuba,china trade deals for venezuela oil, chinese purchases of canadian oil rights and companies.

http://www.theocracywatch.org or read Thom Hartmann's "We the People". They both explain parts of the thinking behind destroying all social programs.. Social security is just the latest program on the hit list.

Because, eventually, the Treasury notes will have to be paid off - the ones they put in IOUs for what is owed to the SS fund. They see the writing on the wall. They have pulled their hair out trying to figure out what to do?? Their first impulse is to figure out a way so they do not have to repeal the sacred taxcut....

but Little Cowboy doesn't exactly have a good track record for business...he should just leave SS alone. He is really making a mess of things..enough already!

An extra layer of costs are added so that the financial services industry can turn a profit. Each retiree will have much less money because of the effects of compounded interest of these fees over time. A calculator on a finance site suggested that if a brokerage charges 2 percent a year for fees (which is not out of line) then at the end of 30 years (when you are ready to retire) the entire principal has been consumed and paid over to the brokerage.

It's welfare for the brokerages. Robbing the working poor and middle class to pay the rich.

The younger you are and the more years you have to compound the effect of the fees, the less likely you are to have anything left to retire on.

It is the exact turn-around of the classic demonstration of how compound interest paid to you can turn $10,000 invested at age 18 into over a million dollars at age 65. When the magic of compound interest is working against you, rather than in your favor, you can NOT come out ahead in the long term -- and unless you are quite old, retirement savings is a long-term plan.

"From those who have nothing, even that little that they do have will be taken from them."

Not to get too metaphysical, but it's things like this that make me wonder if * is indeed the Anti-Christ because he is fulfilling all the prophecies.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

If workers can be coerced into phasing out their F.I.C.A. pay-in, then corporations can also phase theirs out, which is what this administration wants. The Bu$hCo ideal would be corporations paying in Zero Dollars to a "social program" for "poor people." Sounds too much like Godless atheistic communism to the corporate godheads.

I suspect this is the strongest of the several drivers behind this idiocy.

since the Gov. matches funds now, if future generations contribute less by the way of payroll deduction, than wouldn't the Gov. also be contributing less?

He has some inner drive to make his father look inconsequential in comparison to himself. It doesn't matter if he takes this country to hell in a handbasket...he doesn't care...just as long as he is able to "accomplish" things his father did not. (It doesn't matter if the reason his father didn't do some of the things was because they would have not been in the best interest or harmful to the US) Dubya is a spoiled, arrogant child driven by at least four of the seven deadly sins: pride, envy, anger and avarice. (Don't know about sloth, gluttony and lust...but I'll venture a guess they would fit also)

In the case of SS, it's Wall Street that's salivating.

Pride and Prejudice

By BOB KERREY
February 1, 2005; Page A12

The late Pat Moynihan used to joke when I asked him why liberals were so reluctant to consider changing Social Security so that it guaranteed wealth as well as income: "It's because they worry that wealth will turn Democrats into Republicans." Leaving aside that possible correlation, it will be a shame if liberal voices, values and ideas are not brought into the debate initiated by President Bush's Social Security reform proposal. To make certain the reforms are done correctly liberal thinking is urgently needed.

There is no doubt that Social Security and Medicare are two of liberalism's most enduring and popular triumphs. And there is no doubt that a vocal and influential minority remains true to its strong conservative belief that the Social Security Act of 1935 and the 1965 amendments to this act, which created Medicare and Medicaid, represent socialistic and dangerous interferences with the marketplace. However, liberals are wrong to fear that President Bush's proposal represents a threat to Social Security.

I sincerely hope they do not merely defend their proudest achievement. I hope they see that President Bush is giving them an opportunity to finally do something about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

First of all, fears that Social Security will be destroyed are exaggerated. Across all generations and within both major parties, Social Security and Medicare are seen as a vital part of American life. They represent a powerful intergenerational contract between younger Americans in the work force who agree to be taxed on behalf of older, eligible Americans. What makes the contract work is that the expectation of those in the work force is that when they pass the age of eligibility, successive generations of workers will not object to the taxes that must be imposed on them to cover the costs of their income and health benefits.

Secondly, President Bush's fears of a bankrupt Social Security and his rhetoric of the program being in financial crisis are also exaggerated. Relatively small changes in taxes and/or benefits would restore the promise to all living beneficiaries -- those eligible today and those eligible in the future. Unlike the situation that existed in 1983, when Congress and the president acted to avoid a financial crisis, today's financial problems are relatively small.

On the other hand, there are two problems with Social Security that are serious enough to be called a crisis. The first is that in eight years the income from a 12.4% payroll tax will be insufficient to pay the old age, survivor and disability benefits owed at that time. From that point on, Social Security will begin to redeem some of the hundreds of billions of dollars of Treasury bonds it has "accumulated in the trust fund" in order to issue monthly checks to beneficiaries.

Though these bonds are far from "worthless," as some critics allege, the picture of them "accumulating in a trust fund" is not accurate either. That is because, in order to convert these bonds into cash, the U.S. Treasury will use the cash from individual and corporate income taxes. While some income taxes are currently used to pay Social Security benefits, the dollar amounts do not pose a serious budgetary challenge. In eight years that will change. Coupled with the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, the annual benefit demands of Social Security will put real pressure on Congress to cut spending on defense and nondefense appropriations.

It is at this point in time that the demographic and monetary demands of the baby boom generation will become painfully apparent. The disinvestment in public infrastructure caused by the growth in Medicare and Medicaid will become even worse than it is today. And the nature of this crisis will be considerably more daunting than that faced squarely by Congress and the president in 1983. Liberals, who have silently watched the share of state and federal spending apportioned to the elderly grow at the expense of education, training, child care and research, will be appalled to discover how much their silence has cost them.

The second crisis is the one for which liberals are even more urgently needed. This crisis is the shockingly low rates of savings and pitifully inadequate amount of preparation being made by American households for their old age. If liberals were to join this debate and insist upon provisions that would lead to dramatic reductions of the numbers of poor elderly, the outcome could be a dramatically enhanced quality of life for all, reduced dependency upon welfare in old age, and downward pressure on the social costs of growing old.

If liberals joined this debate they would insist that the guaranteed transfer payment of Social Security remain intact. With the evidence that trade, technology and immigration are putting downward pressure on unskilled wages, they might even be able to succeed in changing the current benefit formula so that more than 50% of the first $900 of income was replaced. Perhaps they could even convince their Republican colleagues to eliminate penalties that affect stay-at-home women.

Liberals would fight to make certain that contributions to private accounts were progressive in order to benefit lower-wage workers. They might even argue that accounts be opened at birth, thus giving Americans the longest possible time to accumulate wealth. No doubt they would insist that investment options be carefully regulated to keep administrative costs and risks as low as possible. And since liberals oftentimes understand the good that markets can do even more than some of their conservative colleagues, they could see the wisdom of changing the tax code so that no income taxes were levied on income that went into these savings accounts. All of these would practically guarantee a muscular market response that would give future Americans larger amounts of insured non-employment income to add to the $800 per month on average they receive from Social Security.

None of this will happen if liberals merely shout "hell no, we won't go." The best they can hope for with that strategy is to prevent reform from happening. They should feel no pride of accomplishment if that is the result.

Mr. Kerrey, a Democratic former senator from Nebraska, is the president of New School University, in New York City.

.....

1) Welfare for Wall Street - there's a lot of money to be made by investment firms if they can charge their usual administrative fees to handle a fund that large. They desperately want to get their sticky fingers into the public trough, and they tend to be large (Republican) campaign donors.

2) Ideology - there's a large segment of the right wing that wants to put a stake in the heart of the New Deal, regarding it as the worst thing that ever happened to America. This faction is headed by the likes of Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich. Social Security is the flagship program of the New Deal, and they HATE it and want it dead.

Do you really need to know anything more?

OK, all the other contributions are helpful, but at the end of the day, all you have to remember about Bush is that he's a RW asshole. People voted for the man, for the most part, because they thought a RW asshole would be the better choice.

So he's merely carrying out the RW asshole agenda, much of which entails dismantling any social services. RW assholes think that public funds should ONLY be used for military and (possibly) police. Everything else is window dressing.

It might be a hair more complex than that, but not by much.

They have both been run by the govt with just scant percentage points of management costs.
so turn them into private operations and the bankers and lawyers, accountants and brokers can make a gigantic profit from it.

So, this "change" is really an intention of killing SS.

First, they manufacture a "crisis" (sound familiar?) and then come up with their "solution", which is what they wanted to do even before the crisis.

It's well documented that the extreme right-wing faction of the GOP (maybe that's redundant) has always DESPISED such terrible programs as SS, medicare, and welfare. It's seen as "enslaving" and "encouraging dependance".

So far, there's no plan for what will happen if privatizing fails.

It's simply part of the master plan to keep Americans poor, sick, uneducated and ignorant of what our government is doing.


This Social Security destruction distraction is starting to enrage the population.

This may be what finally brings these criminals down.


Back to your question about why * is attacking Social Security:

Additional reasons as I see them:

1. *'s *private account* scheme will remove money destined for the SS trust fund as it stands today, by placing the $$ into private accounts. This will suck the life blood out of the SS trust fund, leaving less and less for the people's benefits who choose to remain in the original SS program.

(Remember Grover Norquist saying that the Republicans want to "drown government in the bathtub.")

What * is not telling us is that he intends to cut SS benefits to recipients at the same time, further accelerating the draining of the SS surplus.

So, Al Gore's Social Security "lock box", while widely ridiculed by Republicans, is being smashed with a ball peen hammer while we are being forced to watch.


2. Managing all these *private accounts* will need a large number of nice stockbrokers, who will suck up a substantial percentage in fees. Surprise; Wall Street will enjoy more even more income on the backs of working people.


3. Since we are told that *the government* will be choosing which stocks, funds, etc. that people may invest in, I'll wager there will be some fierce competition among these cherry-picked companies to grab up all these private accounts. Will these millions of accounts go to Bush's friends, otherwise known as his "elite base"? Hhmmmmm.


4. Privatizing Social Security is a way to confuse young people into signing on to false rhetoric of "an ownership society", while the Bush administration raids the most successful social safety net in the history of our country. Fattening new Republican ranks is also getting more important now for their predatory survival, and they'll mislead younger workers without a second thought to achieve that end.


5. Gutting Social Security is another way of dividing us into a generational conflict. Old vs. young...

(in addition to racial divisiveness, gender divisiveness, sexual orientation divisiveness, religious devisiveness... hey, whatever works...)

Remember what President Clinton said a few months ago.. "THEY need us to be divided. WE DON'T."


So, gutting Social Security has been on the Republicans' radar for decades and this is their last chance to kill it off. Will we allow them to get away with it?


How can we believe ANYTHING * tells us now, after we got the same urgent marketing rush in the runup to *'s illegal aggression against Iraq?

No WMD??? HE LIED.

No al-Qaeda connection with Saddam??? HE LIED.

Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons???? HE LIED.

Social Security going belly up? HE'S LYING.

We will "own our own health care? HE'S LYING.

"We will increase Pell Grants??? He CUT THEM!!! HE'S LYING.

He will "welcome any and all ideas"????? HE'S LYING.


"Freedom is on the march!" ????? HE'S LYING.



I pray to God that America wakes up before it is too late.

Let's suppose a company finds more than half it's stock owned by Social Security... Does this mean we have in fact "Nationalized" the company?

Heh, heh...

Bush's Social Security Plan is an insidious Communist Plot to Nationalize American Industry!

And if it's not, then the people who pay into this plan are getting ripped off.

But the true reason Bush supports this plan is that it transfers the risk, but not the power, to the workers who "invest" in the plan.

Bush belongs to a criminal enterprise that has risen to power by various forms of accounting fraud. This "Social Security Reform" expands that enterprise's opportunity to commit fraud, and to cover up existing frauds.

as he'd like. I mean he went through our general fund in no time at all, so now he has to focus on where there is still money lying around to steal.

Taking granny's cat food money away from her is easier than say making some big corporate fat cat pay his share of the taxes to steal.

These people are criminals, nothing else.

and they all have George Washington's mug on 'em.

Social Security is the most obvious program left from that era. They probably wouldn't get any support for tearing down powerlines originally established by the REA, though they might get further if they decided to chop down wind breaks planted by the CCC.

Of course, this is not the main reason, it's just the icing on the cake for them. The main reason would be their buddies on Wall Street want more money.

It's not going to be that big a difference for any of us in the near term.

The real issue is he's pushing the war at 300B plus...going to 1 Trillion by the time he leaves office.

Then the loss of about 5000 troops by the time he leaves office.

Then the country MANDATED to increase interest rates by about 2 to 3 percent minimum prior to his leaving office because no other country or world bank will finance this debt while the country is economically retarded.

While all this insanity is going on...the tax breaks will be made permanent and the rich will get richer...at the expense of our country being sold out.

These people are scum bag crooks.