Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Interesting chart -how much you lose w/ Bush-it's more than doing NOTHING

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Seniors Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:57 AM
Original message
Interesting chart -how much you lose w/ Bush-it's more than doing NOTHING
Interesting chart -how much you lose w/ Bush-it's more than doing NOTHING


expected to get less than if we do nothing but he needs $4.5 TRILLION to "shrink" government in this way?

'Cause bein' preznit is hard work

Britain believes privatization was a mistake and they were thinking of going back the American SS system.

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com

In the New York Times article, in the first 20 years of privatization, it would cost $4.5 trillion dollars to shore up a system projected to run a $3.4 trillion deficit over 75 years. Bush wants to commit the government to an unnecessary extra $1.1 trillion of spending

http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec2.htm

"You'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children . . . or grandchildren," Bush said last night. "And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."

The plan is more complicated. Under the proposal, workers could invest as much as 4 percent of their wages subject to Social Security taxation in a limited assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds. But the government would keep and administer that money. Upon retirement, workers would then be given any money that exceeded inflation-adjusted gains over 3 percent.

That money would augment a guaranteed Social Security benefit that would be reduced by a still-undetermined amount from the currently promised benefit.

In effect, the accounts would work more like a loan from the government, to be paid back upon retirement at an inflation-adjusted 3 percent interest rate -- the interest the money would have earned if it had been invested in Treasury bonds, said Peter R. Orszag, a Social Security analyst at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton White House economist.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
REACTIVATED IN CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don;' support privitazaion at all but...
They're want to limit the types of funds that can be invested in to very conservative investments. But they have Joe Sixpack believing that he is going to make a bundle with this plan.

Did you hear the part where * said in the SOTU that you're not going to be allowed to take out a lump sum whenever you want to ? What happened to "its your money" ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Seniors Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC