PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (429663)	7/19/2003 6:08:14 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) of 769670

>The problem with this approach is that the >first generation to receive SS paid little >or nothing into the system. It was and is >a transfer of wealth from one generation >to another. It's a social contract between >generations. Yes, the first recipients paid little into the system compared to the benefits they received. That is where the actuarial unsoundness first crept in. It may be a "social contract", but it is not a "contract" in the traditional sense with the force of law to enforce it. I could easily argue that the original "contract" has already been broken and changed many times over the years (increased SS taxes, reduced SS benefits). I personally don't put very much faith in a "contract" which has terms that can be changed based on the whim of politicians! To me, the term "contract" implies fixed terms that can be relied on. >The main problem with SS is that it's been running >billions of dollars in surpluses since the 80's. And the American people naively voted for politicians to confiscate their money in the form of SS taxes with no _real_ contract to ever receive a future benefit. They were too stupid or lazy (or both) to care. >But George Bush decided that that money was the >"people's money" and that the people deserve their >money back. Pinning the entire problem on George Bush is ludicrous. This problem has been building for decades. What about people who have had their benefits reduced (and their SS taxes increased) by prior actions years before Bush even came into office? Do you not consider these prior actions to be "broken promises"? >Only he isn't giving it to the people paying SS, >he's giving it back to those paying income and >estate taxes which are running severe operational >deficits. Bush has advocated some form of privatization, which would be a start of "giving it back" to people paying SS. It is too little too late, IMO. >These severe deficits will lay the groundwork for >not honoring the debt held by the Treasury owed to SS. The Treasury debt will be honored. "X" number of dollars will be paid at the required time. What those dollars are worth is anybody's guess. >In other words they're stealing from the poor >to give to the rich... I don't see it that way. SS is supposed to be a self-sustaining program. That is the "big lie" that the politicians have been touting for years. The level of income taxes (or estate taxes) is supposed to have no bearing on the SS program.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next