Bush wants to "fix" SSFollow

There will be restrictions on how the money has to be invested and on the people who invest it. I'd guess that there will be hardship withdrawal plans, much like there are with a typical IRA. No one is going to be just given a check and have no restrictions placed upon what they are allowed to do with the money. Besides, we already have a plan that does that and Democrats love it: it's called "Welfare".
----------------------------------------------------------------

name a single restriction.

i have not read ANY, ANYWHERE. nowhere has any restriction been mentioned.

and as far as your "tiny part" of ss being given to you.....you are ASSUMING the people are making the total 90,000 dollars a year for the maximun deduction. BIG NEWS FLASH, 80 percent of america makes LESS THAN 80,000 a year. 50 percent LESS THAN 50,000 a year.

thirdly, READ THE DOCUMENT.

yes, it says you can only invest between 1000 - 1300 a year TAX DEFFERED, but NOWHERE does is say that is ALL you can withhold.

you WILL be able to withhold up to 2/3 of your contributions and invest them anyway way you want. only 1000-1300 can og into a tax defered account.

you are seeing what you want to see to support an argument. you are putting restrictions on how it may be used where NONE are mentioned in the document. you are capping the withdraw at 1000-1300 where no cap is mentioned other than what you can invest TAX DFFERED.

SS benifits are subject to your contributions. you contribute less, you get less.

people who make less than 50,000 a year......over HALF of americans.....will use it for dailey expenses.

they will be living on wellfare when they can no longer work. on government expense.

this DOES NOT fix the SS system. it only partially dismentels it. there will be a gap between what comes in vs what goes out, and this plan DOES NOT adress this issue AT ALL.

the only thing this bill does is give every one another 4 percent TAX BREAK......in a period of record deficit spending. this is ALL this bill does. a tax break. nothing more.

SS was plastered on the bill to sell it to you sheep. and from the posts being posted here, many of you grazing idiots will buy it.

so much the better for me. i will never need SS, and another 4 percent in my pocket is a car payment on a 40,000 dollar car. i wont invest a dime of it in a tax deferred account. il keep the whole 4 percent.

i WILL vote against this bill though as i feel it is wrong to ***** 80 percent of you so i can buy a new car. and i WILL vote against this bill, just incase one of my kids or grand kids becomes one of the grazing masses amoung the 80 percent of you who barely make enough to live on.

Shadowrelm. If we're going to talk about stuff that isn't in any official document, then we have to address the fact that you haven't produced *any* official information about Bush's SS plan. Additionally, of what little has been presented in this thread, there is *nothing* that says that individuals will be able to withdraw funds from their "private" SS investment accounts.

You just assumed that all on your own. You've been screaming about how people will just take 2/3rds of what they currently put into SS and spend it on whatever they want, but *nowhere* in any document does anyone even vaguely imply that.

You can't withdraw SS funds right now, so why assume these funds will work differently? The only difference is where the money goes. Instead of sitting in a big vault somewhere, the money is invested (presumably in a manner similar to 401k investment). I have seen nothing to indicate that individuals will be allowed to withdraw money purely cause they want to.

If you can point to a single credible source that says this, then do so. If you can't, then stop basing your entire argument on that.

<claps hands>

Ehh, I was told I wouldn't be able to make Repubs' *****, but I proved them wrong, Woot!

Congratulations. That's five go-rounds with your Mom.


Yes, I would know.

Sooo, Bush stole from SS actual monies in order to enact tax breaks for his rich buddies (yes, that's my spin, wait, there's more), the money he stole was replaced with treasury IOU's which have to be repaid by 2018 or else what money is left in SS will not be able to cover projected benefits....so we have to privatize SS in order to avert a crisis?

What crisis? If the SS funds were left alone, the CBO (whose numbers I'll take anyday) shows that SS is fine until 2052, and will still be able to pay 73pct benefits after that. Why is this not the headline every freakin' day? Why is the headline "Should we privatize or not?" when SS isn't in trouble for almost 50 more years? SS has only been around for 60 yrs, we're worried about what's going to happen 47 yrs from now? That's like worrying about what you're going to do when you're 90 when you're 50....you have NO IDEA if you're going to even make it to 90. We have NO IDEA what will happen between now and 47 yrs from now, NO economist will tell you THIS is the way things will be 40yrs from now, the economy is too fluid to try to nail it down that way, look at 1960 and 2000....was anybody in 1960 stating, with certainty, anything about the economy? Of course not.

So why is every headline "How will we fix the crisis with SS?" Because Georgie stuck his hand in the cookie jar and wants us to pay for sweet tooth (see? told you more spin was coming).

Must.........sleep.