Bush's Plan to Loot Social Security

I have read things like this before and because of that I believed Bush and the boys were / are pulling another con-game. Add to the fact that no other President has made any claims ( that I know of )that the American Social Security was in any danger of going broke. the link below is very informative and worth the read.

Bush's Plan to Loot Social Security

George W. Bush is telling us that Social Security is in trouble NOW. And you can believe everything he tells you--right?


This trust fund system is one of the few programs set up by the federal government that works. In 1999, SSS received $383 billion in checks, $436 billion in taxes, and an additional $49 billion in interest. Instead of red ink, Social Security made almost $102 billion in profit, to add to the more than $652 billion it had in surplus from previous years.

Dubya is now LOOTING this Social Security surplus by spending the money on weaponry manufactured by his defence industry cronies! As usual, Bush II is LYING to try to wreck the entire Social Security System. He's telling the American public that the Social Security fund is NOT a separate fund in trust to the 32 million older Americans whose lives depend on it. Link

Dubya has a long history of lying about Social Security. When he ran for Congress in 1978 he lied that unless people were given personal investment accounts Social Security would go broke by 1988!

(See: "Years Invested in Social Security Plan," Los Angeles Times, 1/30/05)

If anyone believes social security is going broke, they believe we found all those nukes and barrels of VX gas they said were in Iraq. In other words, they're dumb. Unfortunately, 90% of Americans are dumb.

Bill Clinton may have said something:

"[I]f you don't do anything [with Social Security], one of two things will happen. Either it will go broke and you won't ever get it, or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society ... of taking care of our generation's Social Security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children to a degree that most of us who are parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to you and unfair to the future prospects of the United States."

- President Bill Clinton, February 9, 1998

In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton's response:
"We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen. In 2013 -- that's just 14 years away -- taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks... I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, 'Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?' "
Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999

Oops...looks like y'all have missed some facts. Do a little research before stating as fact the state of an economic issue.

Originally posted by junglejake
Bill Clinton may have said something:

"[I]f you don't do anything [with Social Security], one of two things will happen. Either it will go broke and you won't ever get it, or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society ... of taking care of our generation's Social Security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children to a degree that most of us who are parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to you and unfair to the future prospects of the United States."

- President Bill Clinton, February 9, 1998

In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton's response:
"We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen. In 2013 -- that's just 14 years away -- taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks... I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, 'Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?' "
Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999

Oops...looks like y'all have missed some facts. Do a little research before stating as fact the state of an economic issue.

Only facts you present is that presidents use economic spin to promote their own agendas and the idea of "Saving Social Security" is strong because it contains the element of fear. Hmmm, kinda like the idea of terrorism. Odd that, politicians know just how to get people concerned.

Besides that, the difference between Bush and Clinton is exactly... what? They are about as different as Coke and Pepsi.

You can spin economic forcasts any way you want. The budget, economy, and tax revenue all vary depending on how the figures are interpereted.

I never claimed to be an expert,
Did you read the article I linked to because it says that the SS fine and the ones who say it is not are the people who want to get there hands on Americans money. In addition, the limited research I have done points to a con game by Bush and Co,

Was there a jump in the population about 9 months after World War 2? What age are those baby boomers turning these days? How many people pay in their payroll tax into social security? What's the current rate of inflation? Who's going to be effected by Bush's plan? What's Bush's plan? Is Bush adamant, or is he asking congress to suggest something better, if they can?

Originally posted by Sauron
I never claimed to be an expert,
Did you read the article I linked to because it says that the SS fine and the ones who say it is not are the people who want to get there hands on Americans money. In addition, the limited research I have done points to a con game by Bush and Co,

Basically, and I have no idea why this isn't blindingly obvious, the people driving the White House are identical to the people who drove Enron. When Americans are crying because they have no money after giving the government part of their paychecks for 47 years they'll probably learn. Oh wait, they won't. The entire business of the White House is to find the most efficient means of ensuring that public money ripped out of your wallets and purses is dropped into the hot sweaty hands of corporations and banks.

is it 6 trillion already borrowed with an extra 2 trillion more to boot.how much money is really left?where are your books? are they in order?these are questions that are needed for your furture people may want this cleared up.once you see cuts backs and there is no money for social funding it will take along time to dig yourshelf out of debt.we know canada has had budget after budget and we are just feed up of cuts backs.governments hold on to our money and we never see it again.once you hit the wall its game over and many people will suffer.poverty is on the rise and its a monster of greed and those who have access to it still are getting there last part of the pie.flukemol....

cbc link

Originally posted by Sauron
I never claimed to be an expert,
Did you read the article I linked to because it says that the SS fine and the ones who say it is not are the people who want to get there hands on Americans money. In addition, the limited research I have done points to a con game by Bush and Co,

Yes, and your article wasn't biased at all. I especially was moved by the impartiality with the "as usual" comment about Bush and lying.

I'n going to do something novel. I'm going to post an objective source here, which says Bush exagerated the crisis in his address, using the word bankruptcy, but that there is a problem. And I'll use a source that is widly recognised as being fairly impartial. Wierd, I'm not pushing an agenda but rather the truth.

www.factcheck.org...

Social Securtiy is going broke due to the Goverment dipping into it and writing IOU's. They blew the money. Bush's fix is annuity, you will pay a lot of taxes to the goverment, when you cash out and you will get exactly what you would, if you had social security.
The problem is BUsh paints the idea, that you will earn more in a private account, and you will. The problem is, that if you are poor or middle class you will pay a lot of taxes, so It makes no differance.

Another problem is that you will still be taxed for Social Security and He wants you to put and additinal 4% of your check in your private account.

I just hope it isnt mandatory, so I can do what I want with my money.

Fortunately I’m lucky enough not to have to rely on any government pensions, but others do and that’s what concerns me, LOL I think I’m entitled to about 145$ a month Cnd. That I have no intentions of collecting when I hit 65, I don’t have to work so I don’t pay into CPP any more. I just see this as a rip off by the Bush boys, I could very well be wrong but that’s how I feel.

I was under the impression we were going to be able to take some or all of that 4% and invest it, not that it was going to be an investment on top of the 4%. If that were the case, it would be exactly like an IRA or 401K.

And yes, it's optional. Today, my grandparents paid very little into social security (they either opted out or worked jobs that don't collect. Dunno how it works, but they tell me they paid very little into it). As a result, they get a $30 check every month. Chances are, the SS program under Bush ould work the same way. If you opted out completely and put that 4% into tax free investments, you'd get nothin' from SS. 1% and you'd get 25% of what someone who didn't invest gets.

What I want to know is, why does the AARP care? My father is a retired paramedic/firefighter, and gets their magazine. I've read through it, and they skew facts and decry it as the worst thing ever to be proposed in America, the Bush administration is trying to steal seniors' money.

I thought it was great when Bush cut the AARP's legs from under it by saying that if you're 55 or over, this doesn't apply to you, nothing changes. My dad cracked up at that, too.

Well all I can say is SSI has been the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever. Only the first in ever got their money++ back. SSI was never intened to be such a money grab for poloticians but put massive amounts of money infront of these clowns this is what you end up with. 401K's are nothing but corpeate SSI funds that CEO's use to steal from the employee's same as congress.
Here is what FDR said in 1934. He sounds more like Bush then Polosi or other marxists on the left.

FDR Message to Congress on Social Security (1-17-1935) [wanted private accounts]
PBS ^ | 1-17-1935 | Franklin D. Roosevelt


In addressing you on June 8, 1934, I summarized the main objectives of our American program. Among these was, and is, the security of the men, women, and children of the Nation against certain hazards and vicissitudes of life. This purpose is an essential part of our task. In my annual message to you I promised to submit a definite program of action. This I do in the form of a report to me by a Committee on Economic Security, appointed by me for the purpose of surveying the field and of recommending the basis of legislation.

(source article) www.freerepublic.com...

*removed excessive copy-paste*


[edit on 8-2-2005 by dbates]

Some food for thought these links are for and against privatization.

Social Security Online This is the homepage for the Social Security Administration. Information on retirement, disability, survivors and supplemental security income

Project on Social Security CATO Institute Cato Institute project promotes privatization of Social Security and presents benefits of moving Social Security funds into private accounts.

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
NCPSSM provides advocacy and information campaigns for the landmark federal programs of Social Security and Medicare


Social Security Information Page

The Social Security Network

Social Security Coverage: By the Numbers

The Derailing of Social Security

ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate Not "everyone agrees" with distorted claims

CBS Acknowledges-- But Doesn't Include-- Bush "Critics" on Social Security

CBS, CNN Mislead on Social Security

Stossel Embraces Pinochet’s Pension Privatizer Selling Social Insecurity

You go to war and spend billions to murder soldiers and innocent people, both on your side and off, and then your Governemnt tells you there is a shortage of money to funnel into Social Security to make up for the "predicted" defecit: what a fucxing country America is.

.
How can you loot something that has already been looted?

Bush just wants to spend a couple of trillion to make the adminstrative costs of SS higher. To keep his Brokerage Buds on Wall Street happy.

They paid now they want to play.
.

I`m not American, but I get many opportunities to talk to Americans. Now I`ve read this on the net before, but then I met this guy in insurance, he backed up what I had read. The US pensions pot is full of IOU`s, they total $15 trillion debt hole, and this was a few years ago!

No wonder Bush is pushing for stockmarket involvement, it`s about his only option. BTW. this American said that most people in the US haven`t a clue about this, and when they find out all hell will break lose, no wonder the US authorities are trying to bring in gun controls!

hehe Unspun, we're not as trigger happy as the world seems to think.

As to a defecit, macroeconomics is a funny beast. Our debt is what we owe to ourselves. The IOUs are absloutly true, though, though to par SS they dip into other funds.

Illinois is a great example of this. We have tollways that were supposed to be around for 20 years, then the tolls removed because the highways would have been paid for. Now our tolls, about 40 years later, just doubled in cost to $1 because the toll system is being used for many other things. They may deny this, but if I want to drive to the south side of Chicago then over to indiana, it costs me $10 in tolls, yet Illinois is rated #43 in rode quality in the states. Where is all this money going?

It's not just the social security administration that is expecting a massive shortfall, business sponsered pension plans are also in trouble...for much the same reason. The managers of Enron and others decided that they deserved lavish lifestyles, gave themselves great raises, whle lying to stockholders about the financial state of their companies....many of these pensions were invested into the stocks, and lost money. And, well, some business never got to the part of investing the pension money even, they gave themselves nice raises, build elegant office buildings with nice marble flooring and gold plated faucets. Expecting their profits to later make up the difference.
Heck, if they keep up the same policies and proceedures that have done in the last few decades, I doubt if any of us will be worrying much about weather or not they will be giving us anything, since they will be taking everything from us, just to pay for their bills! And, we'll be worrying about eating!