Does anyone know? (Social Scareity question)

Most of the debate on Shrubs Social Security/investment banker scheme focuses mainly on retirement benefits but,

I have a family member who lost her husband when she was fairly young with 2 children and no real professional experience (she was a stay at home mom) and hadn't really worked long enough to build up equity and savings to any great degree, anyway, without her being able to get SS for herself and her children, she would not have made it. What will happen under Shrubs plan to families like this when some awful tragedy strikes? Also SS comes in handy if you fall victim to some disabling illness or get severely injured..wonder what will happen to those poor folks? Have the republicans adressed any of that?

For sure something else Bush will gut when he gets the chance.

... similar rules applied for the disabled, for supplemental SSI and for survivor's benefits--for people under 55, those benefits would be reduced similarly to regular retirement benefits. Since no one has yet seen the final, finished proposal from the WH, my guess is that for someone younger in the situation you describe, that person would see a slow slide in benefits over the next decade or two.

It's the part of the plan not talked about, because as I heard one person say today, the plan is to make people think like consumers (what plan benefits you most) rather than citizens (what plan benefits you and your community most).

regardless of their age. It is those unlucky under-55s who may become disabled or may need survivor benefits who haven't started collecting them yet who may find themselves holding the short end of the stick.

The logic, of course, is to reduce as much opposition to the changes as possible and divide the people who might otherwise find common cause. But so far it doesn't seem to be working out that way, especially with seniors and over-55s.

... but what happens later is another. I suspect the groups monitoring SS law will have to be looking at an awful lot of fine print in the coming months....

On edit, I have heard that the disabled would have to take a partial hit under the Bushies' plan. When we all see the actual full text, I suppose we'll know then.

BUT, I wouldn't trust anything bush does with regard to any "Social" programs.

A few weeks ago, someone else said something about Bush not having an answer to the question: 'What about SSDI, disaility'? He supposedly said something like: 'Uh, I haven't given it much thought'...<----??????

I'm fighting HOUSING ISSUES right now; I've not kept up on the Social Security Debate.......How is it going? Are we losing or is it at a stalemate?

Thanx, SB

I think we are currently in a good position regarding (no) privatization.

OTOH, we may have already lost on the SS "crisis" issue. It seems that many, including dems, agree that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE RIGHT NOW TO FIX SS (instead of simply pointing out that SS is owed a debt). The most frequently mentioned proposal (put forth by L. Graham, a republican--HELLO?!) involves raising the SS cap from $90K to $140K. I think it is a terrible idea (and have posted to that effect ad nauseam) but it appears to be gathering steam.

I do think Reid is on the right track by refusing to put forth a counter-proposal to *'s non-proposal (still no specifics) but wish the party would better articulate WHY there is no SS "crisis".

:hi:

Good info to ponder on.. :hi: