Is there more to Bush's Social Security "plan"???

Does anyone out there just feel like we're not seeing something?? The proposal he offered last night is pretty much the worst of both worlds. Do they really think people are going to buy into it?

It's almost so bad as to feel like a set-up.

Seems like he and others have been saying that if nothing is done to the SS system it will only be able to pay 75% of benefits 40 or 50 years down the road and that is why the system must be changed now. But his proposal requires changing the indexing formula which will result in about a 25% benefit rate cut! Only thing I can figure is that they want a continuing surplus that can be used to prop up the rest of the deficit spending and his tax cuts benefiting the wealthy.

want this to temporarily boost the stock market so that his term ends with a market boom like Clinton's did?

Still not a great idea... the effect would be temporary, and in the end the market will level out again. One the market becomes a means of providing retirement funds the leveling will probably become permanent.

He has to continue pushing for private accounts since the markets will drop even lower if he indicated he was giving up on that idea.

it hit me while he was talking last night- maybe what he really wants to do, is have the 'government' invest the SS monies in the stock market?????? i'm not very well educated about high finance, but it just seems like he's 'shooting for the sun' in order to 'hit the moon' -

?????

... my smarter than me 21 yr old son pointed out that when * was saying that back in the eighties "they thought" they'd fixed SS for the next 75 years or so-
According to *'s estimates, it's ok through 2041, and if you go back those 25 or so years, and add 41 more years to it, that's pretty close to the estimate 'they' made when they 'fixed' it last time-

duh?

That would make more sense (government investing themselves).

What's odd about his proposal is giving people a 'choice', or in other words, asking the individual to gamble on what they GUESS might provide the best return. That way, I suppose, when we get screwed the government can blame it on us for making a bad choice. His proposal also has more administrative costs.

was his allusion to being able to 'pass on' those 'invested' savings-

My Dad died LONG before he collected anything back on the many many dollars he'd payed into SS - my mom died 4 mos. after him, and all my sibs and i were over 18 so, that money reverted back into the system (which is fine, really)- But where would many of today's 'wealthy' folks be, without the ability to inherit thier 'standing'- and had to really work and go without if they messed up?

(my Dad grew up as a depression era child, and saw SS come into being- his belief was that it was a decent 'tax' that should really benefit those who truly needed it, not something to avoid, or resent- but part of being a member of the 'community' of America- and he was a Repub-to the core, and NOT a rich (in material goods) man)