On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:57:58 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/les..._president.php

extract

Calling for “courage and honesty,” Mr. Bush delivered a State of the
Union address notably lacking in both. The speech covered the normal
bedsheet of issues, but its core was the president’s plans on Social
Security. Bush and his political guru Karl Rove believe that they have
a chance to consolidate the power of the right wing for a generation—and
they are pushing to privatize Social Security.

How is allowing the *voluntary* placing of at most *4%* of your social
security deduction into an index fund, such as those in the Thrift
Savings Program, the 'privatizing' of social security?

Now you're sounding like Pelosi or Reid.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:10:34 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:57:58 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/les..._president.php

extract

Calling for “courage and honesty,” Mr. Bush delivered a State of the
Union address notably lacking in both. The speech covered the normal
bedsheet of issues, but its core was the president’s plans on Social
Security. Bush and his political guru Karl Rove believe that they have
a chance to consolidate the power of the right wing for a generation—and
they are pushing to privatize Social Security.

How is allowing the *voluntary* placing of at most *4%* of your social
security deduction into an index fund, such as those in the Thrift
Savings Program, the 'privatizing' of social security?


Really. Most people (at least those who plan their retirement) already
have 401K or IRA accounts. This would be very similar in concept. Why
would anyone be against the chance to earn more money than what the
current social security plan would provide?

I know I want more control over where my money goes.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:10:34 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:57:58 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/les..._president.php

extract

Calling for "courage and honesty," Mr. Bush delivered a State of the
Union address notably lacking in both. The speech covered the normal
bedsheet of issues, but its core was the president's plans on Social
Security. Bush and his political guru Karl Rove believe that they have
a chance to consolidate the power of the right wing for a generation-and
they are pushing to privatize Social Security.

How is allowing the *voluntary* placing of at most *4%* of your social
security deduction into an index fund, such as those in the Thrift
Savings Program, the 'privatizing' of social security?


Really. Most people (at least those who plan their retirement) already
have 401K or IRA accounts. This would be very similar in concept. Why
would anyone be against the chance to earn more money than what the
current social security plan would provide?

Because the big guvmint liebral would lose control over it.



I know I want more control over where my money goes.

Dave

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:10:34 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:57:58 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/les..._president.php

extract

Calling for "courage and honesty," Mr. Bush delivered a State of the
Union address notably lacking in both. The speech covered the normal
bedsheet of issues, but its core was the president's plans on Social
Security. Bush and his political guru Karl Rove believe that they have
a chance to consolidate the power of the right wing for a generation-and
they are pushing to privatize Social Security.

How is allowing the *voluntary* placing of at most *4%* of your social
security deduction into an index fund, such as those in the Thrift
Savings Program, the 'privatizing' of social security?


Really. Most people (at least those who plan their retirement) already
have 401K or IRA accounts. This would be very similar in concept. Why
would anyone be against the chance to earn more money than what the
current social security plan would provide?

Because the big guvmint liebral would lose control over it.



I know I want more control over where my money goes.

Dave



In 1981 Chile privatized their Social Security system. Those investing on
their own have realized over an average rate of return of 12% since 1981.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/congress/socsec/july97a.html

BTW, do you know who said this:
===================================
In 1960, there were 5.1 Americans working for every one person drawing
Social Security. In 1997, there's still 3.3 people working for every one
person drawing Social Security. In 2030, the year after the Social Security
trust fund supposedly will go broke unless we change something, at present
projected retirement rates -- that is, the presently projected retirement
age and same rates -- there will be two people working for every one person
drawing Social Security.

And if nothing is done by 2029, there will be a deficit in the Social
Security trust fund, which will either require -- if you just wait until
then -- a huge tax increase in the payroll tax, or just about a 25 percent
cut in Social Security benefits.
And I can tell you, I have had countless talks with baby boomers of all
income groups and I haven't found a single person in my generation who is
not absolutely determined to fix this in a way that does not unfairly burden
your generation. But we have to start now.

We have to join together and face the facts. We have to rise above
partisanship, just the way we did when we forced the historic balanced
budget agreement.

======================================


Bill Clinton, 1998

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html...209-15022.html

Time to stop the partisan politics and fix the problem.

On 4 Feb 2005 10:01:17 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:10:34 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:57:58 GMT, "Jim,"
wrote:


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/les..._president.php

extract

Calling for "courage and honesty," Mr. Bush delivered a State of
the
Union address notably lacking in both. The speech covered the
normal
bedsheet of issues, but its core was the president's plans on
Social
Security. Bush and his political guru Karl Rove believe that they
have
a chance to consolidate the power of the right wing for a
generation-and
they are pushing to privatize Social Security.

How is allowing the *voluntary* placing of at most *4%* of your
social
security deduction into an index fund, such as those in the Thrift
Savings Program, the 'privatizing' of social security?


Really. Most people (at least those who plan their retirement)
already
have 401K or IRA accounts. This would be very similar in concept.
Why
would anyone be against the chance to earn more money than what the
current social security plan would provide?

Because the big guvmint liebral would lose control over it.

Kind of like these conservative BushCo lies?....

Bush Lies In State Of The Union Speech

Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be
exhausted and bankrupt."

In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was
interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the
members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the
above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks
concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made
before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire
system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05

Well, it's for sure the BBC knows exactly what the faults are for a
changed US social security system, especially when the USA doesn't
even know what the changes will be yet.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes