Reply With Quote
You don't with AARP. Man, did they ever put out an aggressive anti-campaign.
Post-GazettePresident Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security is dead, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a visit to Pittsburgh yesterday.
Reid along with Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate's Democratic Policy Committee, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, came to Coraopolis for a town meeting about Social Security.
Afterward, Reid told the Post-Gazette editorial board that he had enough votes in the Senate to block President Bush's proposal to introduce private savings accounts as an alternative to the existing federal retirement plan. "It's dead," Reid said. "The president just hasn't acknowledged it yet."
The minority leader also told the editorial board that the Pennsylvania Senate seat held by Republican Rick Santorum is the Democratic Party's principal target in the 2006 elections. Reid also expressed concern that if Senate rules are changed to put an end to filibusters to delay action on judicial nominees, a vital protection for minority-party rights would be lost.
Best news in weeks. Only if we could have filibustered the immoral bankruptcy bill W recently signed into law, justice would have prevailed.
You don't with AARP. Man, did they ever put out an aggressive anti-campaign.
so, then we should stop paying into ss now.. it is going bankrupt and the ing demos have no plans, just complaints...
i see zero problems w/letting people have a choice with their money.. it was not free rein, just a set of limited options...
It was a half-assed plan to begin with, and really did nothing to address the underlying problems with SS. My personal opinion was that it was designed to get people pissed off with SS when they were making bad decisions about their accounts. Further down the road would be the death, and dismantling of SS.
exactly.. ss will begin paying out more than it takes in 12 years.. that will make for its death unless taxes are raised or the age limit for ss is raised.. i personally would love to ss axed 100%.
Sometimes no plan is can turn out better than a half-assed plan.
If the privitizing didn't work the blmae game would start over again...as if it hasn't already. I seem to recall that when the Demos wanted to do something a few years back, the Republicans did anything possible and killed any try to help SS then.....
It is called gridlock.....part of the problem is many people only back one party no matter what and NEVER listen to anyone else....all they can do is blame the side.....that is what we get when alot of people vote for the party and not the actual person.
well, no plan in this case WE KNOW already means BANKRUPT SS... that is no good..do you agree.. anything is worth a try...
Well what do you think the solution should be Dan? Those of us paying into it today are not going to see a ing dime out of it.
Yeah, you definitely should be happy about that.
Ex- ing-actly! we are just paying money for no reason...Well what do you think the solution should be Dan? Those of us paying into it today are not going to see a ing dime out of it.
Yeah, you definitely should be happy about that.
So are you implying to just get rid of it totally?
I agree something should be done...but it needs to done right....if it is not done right we will be talking about it again 5-10 years later saying we should have done it right this time.
Then lets think of a plan that actually keeps SS solvent instead of proposing a plan that does nothing to solve the long-term problem.
i have a plan.. get rid of it entirely.. make people responsible for their own retirement... EVERYONE has the ability to save...
Privitizing SS was one of the few good ideas Bush has ever had, and now its dead because a bunch of old farts are no good with math.
Howabout... Give everyone a 401k plan when they turn 18 with $1000 in it. Advise them on the advantages of putting more into it, and let them invest when they get a job and have money?
I don't even know the math on something like that, but it seems simple and something that people could do more with and come out with more to show for it.
What frustrates me right now is that all the sorry ass democrats are doing nothing but ing bagging on Bush's plan, while offering nothing of their own. All I see is , Bush sucks.
You know what? Shut the up and come up with a better idea. I don't think Bush's plan is perfect, but it's a lot better than either SS or anything I've seen come out of the liberal camp.
I'm out.
That's the great thing about America, everyone does have a opportunity to save for their own retirement. SS is meant as a safety net that is supposed to keep people from eating out of garbage dumps and living in cardboard boxes. Remember that not everyone has been as fortunate as maybe you have.
you don't have to be rich to save money.. that is the cop out of lower income people. instead of buying cigarettes or potato chips or whatever else.. put that money in a savings account or mutual fund.. even if it is only $1 a day that is 30 bux a month.. that adds up over the course of a years and years of compounding...
i have an idea for A&M's starting tailback to get more than -6 yards rushing in the cotton bowl, but they have nothing better, so all i can do is ...
you don't have to be rich to save money.. that is the cop out of lower income people. instead of buying cigarettes or potato chips or whatever else.. put that money in a savings account or mutual fund.. even if it is only $1 a day that is 30 bux a month.. that adds up over the course of a years and years of compounding...
And what happens if you get morbidly sick or your in a unfortunate accident? Under new bankruptcy laws you could lose your home, car, all your savings, and your pay check can be docked.
1 dollar a day invested at 6% a year...after 45 years that is 87,334.. not too bad..and that is at a conservative 6%... at 10% it is $315,000!
why would you have a pay check if you were morbidly sick?
You wouldn't, unless you became permenantly disabled. My point is that you have to look beyond your own cir stances. There are people with serious mental and physical problems out there. Many of whom are unable to care for themselves. It's fourtunate, but its the reality we live in today. Without a safety net for these people, its estimated that 1/4 of SS recipients live solely on money they receive from the program, they would be living on the streets and eating from dumpsters.why would you have a pay check if you were morbidly sick?
dan is right
again
many people choose to save at all bc of ss... that is why 1/4 only have ss and nothing else...
the u.s. was not based on socialism... why do you want us to be socialists???
LOL!! dan is almost never right.. he is also posting distorted stuff left and right...
So because there's a few people living in mental homes we should tell the other three hundred million people living in this country tough ?
Well, I'll say this for you, you're definitely a far left liberal.
Here's a thought: come up with a seperate plan for those that you're discussing, one that helps deal with those medical costs, and let the other hundreds of millions in this country do something besides give money to SS that they have no hope of seeing come back to them down the road.
That's another thing I hate about liberals. If something's affecting someone, somewhere, the rest of the country has to suffer for it as well, instead of dealing with that cir stnace fairly and letting the rest of the country live their lives.
If you want socialism move to Cuba.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
