NationStates Jolt Archive


The Rich Get Richer While Gutting Social Security... Thanks Bush

Sumamba Buwhan
03-09-2004, 00:56
So should we all stop paying into social security?

President Declares "Ownership Society"
Tells Convention He's Ordered Invasion of Social Security Trust Fund
by Greg Palast

September 2, 2004 17:06

[New York] Of all the bone-headed, whacky, breathtakingly threatening
schemes George W. Bush is trying to sell us in his acceptance speech
tonight is something he and his handlers call, "the Ownership Society."
Sounds cool, "ownership." Everyone gets a piece of the action.
Everyone's a winner as the economy zooms. All boats rise.

Sure. Behind the hooray-for-free-enterprise crapola is that dog-eared
game-plan to siphon off Social Security revenues to pay for making
Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent.

Here's what the President has in mind. Social Security is an insurance
plan. You pay in, you get back. But it's hard to get your money back
when there's a war where the Clinton surplus used to be. It's not the
war on terror, or the war in Iraq, though Lord knows those have cost us
a bundle with nothing to show for all the lost loot. I'm talking about
the class war that Dubya and his Dick Cheney have waged on the average
working person.

We're talking an economic Pearl Harbor here. While firemen and
policemen went running into falling buildings, the Bushmen were preparing to
relieve some gazillionaires, such as say, the Bush family, of the need
to pay the taxes that the rest of us pay. Work as a teacher, you pay
Social Security and income taxes on every darn penny. Sit on your yacht
and speculate in the stock market casino and you are off the hook on
taxes on the "capital gains."

Bill Clinton proposed putting his big surpluses into a Social Security
"lock-box" for that predictable rainy day. But tonight, Bush instead
proposes to give the stock-options class a boost by lopping off a chunk
of Social Security insurance revenue for gambling in the stock market.
He had this same idea in 2000. If he'd had his way on his inauguration
day, the average "owner" in America, investing in the stock market,
would be 7% poorer, many flat busted. Some "security." Happy elderly
"owners" would be hunting for lunch in the garbage cans under Madison
Square Garden.

Here's the latest report from the front lines of the class war: The
World Bank reports the USA has more millionaires than ever -- we'll see
them at the Garden tonight. Median household income's down -- most of us
are median -- while the bottom has fallen out for those at the bottom.
Our poorest 20% have seen incomes drop by a fifth. America's upper one
percent now own 53% of all the shares in the market.

And now the uppers want to crack open your retirement piggy bank, cut
some of your retirement benefits, then "allow" you to give them the
remainder of your money to fund their latest stock float schemes.

If betting trillions on stock market ponies doesn't produce a big win,
what does Mr. Bush propose to do with all the hungry old folk? I
think I heard George say, "Let them eat Enron certificates."

And the future market fall, Mr. President, is a slam-dunk certainty.
Let's do the math. OK, class, we all buy stock this afternoon to fund
our retirement. In fifteen years, baby-boomers are ready to kick back,
take it easy and retire on the stock they're about to sell. Did I say,
"SELL"? And HOW. Around 2020, tens of millions of "owners" will be
selling their shares … to whom? CRRRRASH!

A deliberate policy of aiming for another 1929 is appropriate for the
top-hat and pinky-ring party of Herbert Hoover.

The big problem is that supposedly non-partisan and even Democratic
poobahs are rushing to "reform" Social Security. We have Alan Greenspan,
who has barely a word to say about the multi-trillion dollar deficit
wrought by Mr. Bush's tax cuts, yet is already warning about some
disaster in Social Security based on "trends." Well, if we go by his own
trend, the Fed chief will soon be marrying a 12-year-old Girl Scout.

Hey, Alan, back to Economics 101 for you. As the boomers hit
retirement age, we're going to need added borrowing for transfer payments like
Social Security to maintain purchasing power to keep the economy alive
while millions of old folk dump assets.

Listen, Mr. President, we had an "ownership" society once before.
Luckily, it came to an end when Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation
Proclamation.
Straughn
03-09-2004, 01:02
Is there anyone OTHER than the Neocons the presiding excrement hasn't stabbed in the back?
CRACKPIE
03-09-2004, 01:11
I totally agree. even though I benefitted handsomely from the Bush Tax cut ( dont hurt me! Please!) I see not why we had one at all. Oh, wait, yes I do, cuz Bush Snorts way too much coke from dick cnehey crotch. More money for ss I say!
Sumamba Buwhan
03-09-2004, 01:12
Is there anyone OTHER than the Neocons the presiding excrement hasn't stabbed in the back?

don't leave the neocons out of it... they are part of the group getting skrewed too... they just dont realize it because FOX news is pacifying their brain cells into a hypnotic state and now all you hear them saying is "yes master", and "vote Bush cuz kerry flip-flops and didnt earn his purple hearts" and "desite what the numbers say, the economy looks good and all problems are clintos fault because he got a bj and doesnt give the military everything they want"
Johnistan
03-09-2004, 01:13
Speaking of social security, I had severe problems applying for a replacement social security card.

Apparently, Janos Kozma is too foreign sounding.
Sumamba Buwhan
03-09-2004, 01:25
I totally agree. even though I benefitted handsomely from the Bush Tax cut ( dont hurt me! Please!) I see not why we had one at all. Oh, wait, yes I do, cuz Bush Snorts way too much coke from dick cnehey crotch. More money for ss I say!

can i "borrow" some money?
Ashmoria
03-09-2004, 01:26
if there is one thing that bush NEEDS to flipflop on its his privatizing of social security.

can anyone say ENRON? the people who had their retirement invested in enron went from having hundreds of thousands of dollars to having NONE. this is a disaster for them and would be a disaster for millions of americans who invested their SS money in bad investments.

if social security is the bottom of the saftey net at an amount you cant really live on, how can anyone live on 10% less than whats necessary?

it only occurredto me the other day that this is the republicans way of reducing social security payments in the future. no politician can say "we need to pay old people less in the future" so they are putting a nice face on it with "oh you can invest part of your SS taxes yourself"

there is no social security trust fund, its a polite fiction. SS taxes today pay for govt today. (and bush has already shown that he in unconcerned with how big federal deficits get) future taxes will pay out the SS benefits of the future.

the republicans want to trick us into agreeing to getting less and if your "investments" dont pan out then "F you". i guess you better hope that cat food is cheap when you retire.
Sumamba Buwhan
03-09-2004, 01:32
well said Ash
Third Parties
03-09-2004, 01:34
Let me see if I have this right? Rather than attempt to reform Social Security we should let the boomers exhaust the money we saved up. Don't blame it all on Bush, no one has been responsible with the money we should have allocated for Social Security years ago. Of course I am being naive advocating "reform", we should instead just wait for the sky to fall. Then we can blame Bush for not fixing the problem. Sorry for having this notion that maybe, just maybe, people should be able to keep the money they earn, that probably makes me an inconsiderate jerk. Or worse, a conservative.
No I am not voting for Bush, but this is one area where he doesn't deserve the flak he's getting. Even backwards China has an investment based retirement system. Funny how our "capitalist" nation is less efficient than the last Communist Nation on earth (sorry Cuba).
Purly Euclid
03-09-2004, 01:37
http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html
This is why Social Security should be dramatically reformed. Martin Feldstein, btw, is floated about as a name for the next Fed Chairman.
Third Parties
03-09-2004, 01:37
Nixon was the one who increased SS payouts to what they are today, but as usual it is the evil Republicans who are trying to fix a broken system that should be blamed. No one is going to force you to invest in the stockmarket, but throwing the money in the bank will ensure that it is there tomorrow. No it won't be easy to live on 10% less than what is needed, but it will be impossible to live on the amount of money my generation will recieve for SS (that would be zero dollars). The SS titanic is sinking, but as long as Commander Kerry says we're ok I guess we are.
Kwangistar
03-09-2004, 01:44
don't leave the neocons out of it... they are part of the group getting skrewed too... they just dont realize it because FOX news is pacifying their brain cells into a hypnotic state and now all you hear them saying is "yes master", and "vote Bush cuz kerry flip-flops and didnt earn his purple hearts" and "desite what the numbers say, the economy looks good and all problems are clintos fault because he got a bj and doesnt give the military everything they want"
Palast obviously does bad things for your brain.


Anyone who invests all their retirement in one company (Enron, or some other one that has failed) needs to learn how to manage stock. Its never a good idea to put all your eggs on one basket. Things like Enron or WorldCom are the exception and not the rule.
Ashmoria
03-09-2004, 02:07
Palast obviously does bad things for your brain.


Anyone who invests all their retirement in one company (Enron, or some other one that has failed) needs to learn how to manage stock. Its never a good idea to put all your eggs on one basket. Things like Enron or WorldCom are the exception and not the rule.
if we were all smart about money we would all be rich

people invest in all kinds of things. many are a good idea at the time that ends up a bad idea in the end. some are just flat out scams. some are excellent investments.

all im saying is, dont screw with the saftey net. leave investments to experts and those with money they can afford to lose.
Kwangistar
03-09-2004, 02:10
if we were all smart about money we would all be rich

people invest in all kinds of things. many are a good idea at the time that ends up a bad idea in the end. some are just flat out scams. some are excellent investments.

all im saying is, dont screw with the saftey net. leave investments to experts and those with money they can afford to lose.
But SS privatization isn't screwing with the safety net. Even with the recession lately, with other stock market screw-ups in the past, 40 years ago, if you invested in stock today you would reap huge benifits now when you're retiring. Barring a depression, which would force an overhaul anyway, long-term investment in a mixture of safe companies will bring profit.
The Far Green Meadow
03-09-2004, 18:54
if we were all smart about money we would all be rich

people invest in all kinds of things. many are a good idea at the time that ends up a bad idea in the end. some are just flat out scams. some are excellent investments.

all im saying is, dont screw with the saftey net. leave investments to experts and those with money they can afford to lose.

Amateurs concerned about wise investments can get help from very reputable companies. Most insurance companies (State Farm, USAA) offer investment services with no more out-of-pocket cost than the amount you want to invest. SS can't keep going the way it is. Reform is imperitive so that not only myself, but my children will have something to retire on.
Tzorsland
03-09-2004, 19:16
I'll preface my remarks by saying that I am a solid Bush supporter. But I still scratch my head in confusion whenever Bush tries to push the so called priviation of Social Security. It just doesn't make sense.

I understand where he is comming from. The US is limited by law into where Social Security money can be invested. This limitation has allowed the US Congress to literally embezzle the trust fund for various purposes. The stock market, it would seem has a greater rate of return. But it has a higher risk.

If we agree that we need to get a higher rate of return, then we need to set up Social Security like a real pension plan, with an indepenant board who can set up a balanced portfolio based on maximum return for minimum risk. The problem is that the clout of this plan would be unbalancing to the system, but with some limits, it can be done.

Meanwhile, we need to expand the ability for people to invest their money for their retirement. Personally I see the way forward is give the opportunity for everyone to be able to participate in a 401K plan, not only those who belong to companies with such plans. A good 401K plan (and not all 401K plans are "good") allows a person to invest a good sum of money into a blanced portfolio that he can adjust over time and get a tax benefit right at the moment he gets his paycheck.

This leaves social security alone. (Good for the present.) It also reduces the burden that people will demand of social security when they retire decades from now because they will have two major nest eggs to draw from. It's a win/win situation!