Bush Pushes Soc. Sec. for Future's Poor

[jefferson_dem]

Bush Pushes Soc. Sec. for Future's Poor
By TERENCE HUNT and DAVID ESPO, Associated Press Writers

President Bush urged Congress on Thursday night to tilt the Social Security system to benefit low-income retirees of the future as part of a plan to shore up the program's finances.

At a prime time news conference, Bush said he envisioned a plan under which all future retirees could "count on a benefit equal to or higher than today's seniors," a formula that left open the possibility that guaranteed benefits for middle and upper income seniors could be cut in later years to bring Social Security's finances into balance.

Republicans officials had said in advance that the president would prod lawmakers to embrace a plan that would curtail benefits for middle and upper income retirees of the future, but he did not directly address the issue in opening remarks.

Facing reporters in the East Room of the White House, Bush also pledged his effort to address rising energy costs. "There will be no price gouging at gas pumps in America," he said. The House has approved energy legislation, and a companion measure is awaiting action in the Senate. Bush said he wanted a bill on his desk by summer.

<SNIP>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_9&printer=1

[Trajan]

1. The 'Future Poor' ...

Those who are 'blessed' with living in a GOP government ...

They know their audience, eh ?

[Avalon Sparks]

2. uh huh

"There will be no price gouging at gas pumps in America"


Exxon's profits up 44% last quarter.

[porkrind]

3. Are you F*CKING kidding me?

That's what I actually said out loud when I saw that headline on Yahoo. That thieving asshole knows no shame. He is stealing our future, and republicans love him for fucking them over as much as he's fucking us over. Unbelievable. Welcome to the new millennium. Ain't the future great?

[AuntiBush]

4. Dem's Consistent: Bush IS taking SS Surplus & that new Budget

takes all of it right up to the year, 2010. That's 2 years away from when he claims (lies) it will be gone.

Aww... yeah. Senators Sarbanes and others have been pushing this on C-Span all evening. They're adamant. Chimp's been taking all $ out of Surplus since entering office.

Keeping out eyes off the bouncing ball, that might be why he did his speech tonight.

[Psephos]

15. Raiding the trust fund started back in the 60s

under Dems, unfortunately.

* is merely the latest (and worst) offender.

"Borrowing" the surplus to make the deficit look smaller has been done for decades. The Clinton surpluses, for example, were actually deficits, hidden by the spending of money coming into the trust fund. Reagan was a particularly egregious raider.

Peace.

[BrendaStarr]

23. I'm sure it was never as bad as under as under Reagan Bush 41 and Bush 43

Really it's is a matter of proportion.

And how about that big surplus built during the Clinton administration?

Gore was going to put it in a lock box to protect SS.

BTW, has there ever been a debt created so quickly by any administration since WW2 as has developed under the Idiot in Chief?

It is in fact driving the economy into a second recessionary period or worse.

[Psephos]

44. I would love to have seen Gore get a chance to use his lock box

I'm with you in spirit all the way, but we do part company a bit on the facts.

First, as I mentioned in my original post, the Clinton surpluses were actually deficits once you account for the purloined trust funds. Not anywhere near as bad as the current deficits, of course, but deficits all the same.

The last real, true budget surplus run in this country was in 1969, under Nixon.

Second, while the absolute dollar figures of the current deficits are staggering, when viewed as a percentage of GDP (as economists do), they are not the worst ever; in fact, they are more-or-less in line with norms of the last 30 years. The sad thing is, they could have been a lot less. Thanks for nothing, *.

But the deficits that scare me are the ones yet to come.

We have to pay back all the money stolen/borrowed from the SS trust funds. There's a couple of trillion right there. Then we have to figure out how to fund Medicare. No one talks about it, yet it is more threatening than SS.

Peace.

[SoCalDem]

5. Defining "Poor"

Let's say that Granny & Gramps bought a house in 1965...for 30K..It's been paid for for AGES...BUT...it's now "worth" 500K "on paper"... They are now going to have their social security benefits CUT, because even though SS might be their ONLY income, their house "value" will automatically bump them up to "wealthy" status..

This is a cheesy way to force old people to dump their only asset (their paid for home), in order to get an income that they EARNED for 40 + years...

So.. I guess the "final solution" is for "Hoovervilles" to spring up to house all the oldsters who can no longer "afford" to be homeowners.. Row upon row of huts for them to live out their days..:(

[BrendaStarr]

24. Also red areas are "poor"

Because housing tends to be cheaper in the South and midwest and in rural areas, the middle class extends to a lower income level.

What is great for them is that when things are weighed on a national level they are "poor" while Mom and Dad with an inflated house value in a more liberal area either a blue state or in a city are not though they could not afford to sell and live in just decent housing in their area and still get their benefits.

The extreme prices rise of housing in bluer areas has allowed the Bush administration to start calling for helping the "poor" because it will be more money flowing into red areas.

Basically we are seeing liberalism used as a way to pay back Republican supporters.

It is possibly one reason that the right wing message boarders are on the mixed boards daily spamming them with lies, though I also suspect that they are being paid for each post and probably under the table.

I read experts (though not many will say this because they fear they will lose their paychecks from corporate America) say that the only thing we need to do is to drop the wage cap on social security taxes.

Here is one from MSN Money Central http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/RetirementandWills/P73718.asp

[SoCalDem]

25. Wage cap needs to GO...and always needed to go..

for "some" to pay on every stinking dime they make, and for others to go "exempt" at noon on Jan 1 is obscene..

There was a time when around October, my husbands check had extra money in it..just in time for Christmas shopping.. It hasn't been that way since reagan picked out pockets.. and all that money that piled up, was just plain STOLEN by congress..(both parties)..

They just need to raise taxes on the rich ones who were awarded OUR surplus SS money, and we would be solvent again

[damntexdem]

6. Well, maybe it WILL help some of the future's poor:

because with the Bush economy, soon everyone will be poor. So if it then helps anyone, that one will be poor. ;-)

[area51]

7. "Bush Pushes Soc. Sec. for Future's Poor"

As if GW Hoover cares about the poor. And his dying economy has certainly made many people poor.


-------------
"Prosperity is just around the corner." — Herbert Hoover
"The economy has turned a corner." — GW Bush

Herbert Hoover = GW Bush

Neither man cared about the Depression their economic policies created.

[kainah]

8. means testing

means testing Social Security, turning it into a welfare program, and you know how they feel about welfare. All part of trying to destroy Social Security.

Keep saying means testing, means testing, means testing....

[DrZeeLit]

9. Price gouging? Duh... Mobil Exxon's profits last quarter = 44%

Can you say cow and barn door?

* energy bill is a piece of crap that doesn't address anything.

When will this nightmare end?

[high density]

10. Bush Smiles At The Little Guy

Bush Smiles At The Little Guy

(CBS/AP) President Bush put a populist face on his Social Security plan by urging Congress to tilt the system to benefit low-income retirees of the future as part of a plan to shore up the program's finances.

At a prime-time news conference Thursday night, Mr. Bush said he envisioned a plan under which all future retirees could "count on a benefit equal to or higher than today's seniors," a formula that left open the possibility that guaranteed benefits for middle and upper income seniors could be cut in later years to bring Social Security's finances into balance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/27/politics/main691443.shtml

Uh... Is that really an appropriate title for the corporatism that's going on here?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. That title belongs on no piece of fair journalism unless

Chimp shows his choppers to a midget.

Revolting.

[Pirate Smile]

11. Bush Pitches Less Soc. Sec. for Better-Off

Bush Pitches Less Soc. Sec. for Better-Off

By GLEN JOHNSON
The Associated Press
Thursday, April 28, 2005; 9:29 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, trying to set off a depth charge under Social Security negotiations, on Thursday proposed asking future higher-income workers to accept smaller benefit checks.

"This reform would solve most of the funding challenges facing Social Security," Bush said in a prime-time news conference.

"Social Security worked fine during the last century, but the math has changed," the president said. He cited figures from the system's trustees showing that the program in 2017 will start paying out more in benefits annually than it takes in from payroll taxes.

Bush did not lay out any specific ideas in his news conference, but a fact sheet distributed by the White House said "benefit increases for wealthier seniors should grow no faster than the rate of inflation," adding that "this reform would solve approximately 70 percent of the funding problems facing Social Security."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801589.html

Republicans are going to love this idea. NOT!

[whistle]

12. Bush still has no social security reform plan, it's still all talk......

...in fact since Bush's inauguration in Jan 2005, what the fuck has he accomplished? Great, the 2006 budget has been passed, biggest deficit in history. No energy policy that will lower gas prices, no troop withdrawl schedules from Iraq, economy slowing down interest rates rising...... a total lame duck!

[Rose Siding]

13. NYT: Bush Cites Plan That Would Cut Social Security

President Bush called on Thursday night for cutting Social Security benefits for future retirees to put the system on sound financial footing, and he proposed doing so in a way that would demand the most sacrifice from higher-income people while insulating low-income workers.

Saying the retirement program is headed for "bankruptcy," a term his opponents say is an exaggeration, Mr. Bush edged tentatively - but for the first time explicitly - into the most politically explosive aspect of the debate over how to assure Social Security's long-term health: the benefit cuts or tax increases needed to balance the system's books as the baby boom generation ages and life expectancy increases.

http://nytimes.com/2005/04/29/politics/29bush.html

Love how he waves the prospect of increased benefits for low-income workers the same day his budget kicks them off of health care.

[Rose Siding]

16. Ha! and the WP: Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits

Front page!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801044.html

[Selteri]

14. I personally liked his statement that the poor would

somehow gain more than the rich in the social security system he has planned... seems pretty... i dunno... crazy!

[wellst0nev0ter]

42. Try Inflationary.

[stevebreeze]

17. here's my favorite part on SS

"I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. "

I mean thank God GW will give us the option of putting our SS funds in Treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. This is of course as opposed to how the trust fund surplus is handled now. Remember two weeks ago When GW visited the filing cabinet in West Virgina, and showed us all those worthless pieces of paper, that are the trust fund? Oh wait never mind THOSE WERE TREASURY BONDS BACKED BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT!!!! Why do I feel like someone is selling me a bridge in Brooklyn?

[Southsideirish]

19. Who the hell is this "democrat" Pozen?????

[struggle4progress]

43. " ... former economic adviser to GOP Gov. Mitt Romney ..."

[zann725]

20. And his concern for the poor? As reflected in recent Medicaid cuts?

Fool us once...shame on...

[zann725]

21. And his concern for the poor? As reflected in recent Medicaid cuts?

Fool us once...shame on...

[zann725]

22. And his concern for the poor? As reflected in recent Medicaid cuts?

Fool us once...shame on...

[NNN0LHI]

26. Rich, middle class benefit could drop

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-bush29.html

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, trying to set off a depth charge under Social Security negotiations, on Thursday proposed asking future middle- and higher-income retirees to accept smaller benefit checks than they're currently slated to receive.

In a prime-time news conference, Bush said a system in which benefits for low-income workers ''grow faster than for people who are better off would solve much of the solvency problem'' facing the government retirement program.

''I propose that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get,'' he said.

But a White House fact sheet suggested that changes include smaller benefits than currently planned for all but lower-income future retirees.

more

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[soupkitchen]

28. And should be proud of taking no benefit

And patriotically proud of having contributed to a system that provides benefits for those less fortunate than them.
And smart enough to realize that this system of providing for the less fortunate has indeed created an economy that provided them with opportunities to make their wealth.

[fasttense]

29. Bunch of lying stealing politicians.

I've watched them roll back my retirement age and cut my benefits on SS for years until what I'm currently going to get is barely above the poverty level and now he wants to cut it again. What for? So people who make more than $90,000 a year don't have to pay their fair share. Well they haven't heard the last of me.

[etherealtruth]

30. Didn't * classify anyone "earning" more than $20,000...

... as upper income? So all those "rich folk" making $21,000 /year will see reductions.

[Jacobin]

31. How to destroy SS by making it like 'welfare'

Nice move Rove......couldn't attack SS for what it is, so make it unpopular and then there will be lots of folks pissed

[Mel]

35. ding ding ding

you get it Jacobin that's exactly what they are trying to do! They have hated SSI 'Social Security Insurance' from day one and have always said it's going to go bankrupt.

Social Security Insurance is for the common wealth.

It's not about 'Eat the Rich' it's about "the Rich not getting ate their selves"

people don't fall for this it's a divided the people plan strategy now.
They can't win playing fair so they will lie and try to further divided people against one another.

Meanwhile, back at the WH and in Congress they are stealing we the people blind!
Thing is they don't want to pay what they've stolen back sure other Presidents have used the SSI money. What I think that's different this time these corporatistas don't wanna' pay it back. I also think none of them have any true intentions of fixing the system they want to crush it cripple it then funnel it into Wall Street so they can steal from us there too!

They are a pack of corporatista global gangsters!

[happyslug]

38. That is why FDR set up Social Security as he did.

FDR knew welfare was unpopular, so he set up Social Security as a program for EVERYONE, where EVERYONE will get a benefit based on what they put into the system. Thus SS looks like an investment program. This was to make sure the program had popular support and thus adequate funding. Just look at SSI and Welfare, in 1974 when SSI was adopted by Congress the Welfare amount and the SSI amount was almost the same, but because SSI is often confused with SS disability, SSI fundings has kept up with inflation while Welfare has stagnated so that in my home state the Welfare payment is about 1/4 of what a person gets on SSI (and some states pay even less).

The older I get the more I see the wisdom behind FDR's decision to make SS a benefits to the middle class. Being a Middle Class benefit the Middle Class will make sure it is funded, unlike Welfare which the Middle Class does not believe it will never need and as such do not support adequate funding for Welfare.

[Bridget Burke]

32. As he spoke, the Budget passed....

The United States Senate and House of Representatives late on Thursday passed a federal budget for fiscal 2006, which at $2,56-trillion is tighter than the White House's budget proposal that already called for cuts across the board excluding defence and security.

The budget, which President George Bush is expected to sign into law, maintains the tax cuts introduced by the Bush administration after 2001 and extends some that are due to expire at the end of this fiscal year, in October.

www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1114752422182R131

Since tax cuts will be maintained or extended, lower SS benefits will not hurt the rich. So the middle class will be expected to make up the difference.

Both the poor & middle class will suffer because of cuts to (non-security/non-military) programs. Is the SS "plan" designed to set them against each other?

[tsuki]

33. If anyone but Bushco was proposing this, I might consider it. I

just know that the middle class would get cut, the lower class would have benefit cuts, and the rich would keep getting their $2000 a month. He is such a liar.

[BiggJawn]

34. So what's the cut-off income?

If it's $40,000, shit, I may vote ReTHUGlican next time! :sarcasm:

So I'm thinking it will be a lower figure, in order to further deflect the upper-lower-class' anger in the Class War from the Wealthy to people poorer than us.

Say....I just heard a "Man on the Street" in Chicago say "The poor's benefits stay the same, and everyone else gets cut.."

Yeah, that's the ticket...

[DanCa]

37. Good Question

I am below poverty now with disability pay. Whats right before that? Prepoverty UnPoverty Depoverty Repoverty?

[Kolesar]

36. Until the benefits for the poor catch up with the benefits for the rich

...in a few decades. Then the GOP-holes will start screaming "class warfare".

[w4rma]

39. Retailers should oppose this. Old folks will have *less* expendable

income to buy things.

[Tempest]

40. Not could, will. And in the long run, everyone's benefits will be cut.

Here's a detailed analysis of Pozen's plan, which Bush talked about last night:

http://www.cbpp.org/3-21-05soc­sec.htm

[KayLaw]

41. Just like the Bankruptcy Bill

He said he did that for the benefit of the poor, too, remember. He's such a godly man--he looks out for the poor. . .sigh.