Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (673733)	3/1/2005 2:18:13 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Right now personal accounts are only an idea. How can you say all that? * * *

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (673733)	3/1/2005 2:32:10 PM
From: Wayners	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Does ANYBODY on SS even today ever get all the money they paid in over a lifetime back in SS payments adjusted for inflation including the hyperinflation of the 1970s and two currency devaluations? If the answer is NO, SS has and always has been a fraud to skim SS payments to Government Contracts as a surplus.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (673733)	3/1/2005 5:38:59 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

THS SS CLAW BACK LIE SUNDAY, Feb. 6, 2005, 4:16 p.m. Watching Pelosi this morning, I have two points: First, the Democrats not only have no alternative ideas on Social Security, they don't even pretend to have any. Second, they are prepared to distort and lie about the president's plan. The scam of the week appears to be over the so-called "clawback"... This morning, on ABC, Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi said: “If you took a private account, at the end of the day you would have to pay about 70% of your original social security benefit to offset. It's called a "claw-back," not a name many are familiar with." But the White House has already shot down this line of attack: The Real Meaning Of The Term “Claw Back:” “A ‘claw back’ is typically a feature of a plan where the government guarantees a certain combined benefit from the traditional system and the personal account. Under such a plan, the better your account does, the less you get from the government. Therefore, the gains in the accounts are ‘clawed back.’” Why The President’s Plan Does Not Fit That Definition: President Bush’s plan “does not have a ‘claw back.’ Under the President's plan, you, not the government, get all the gains in your personal retirement account. The amount you receive from the government is NOT reduced if your personal account does well. The better your account does, the better off you are.” (The White House, Office Of The Press Secretary, “Setting The Record Straight,” Press Release, 2/3/05) Factcheck.org agrees, issuing a clarification on its own mention of the Claw Back, and removing the term from its release: “We originally used the term ‘clawback’ to describe the sum of money that the government would require workers to use to purchase an annuity upon retirement. The White House does not use that term and specifically denies that the mandatory annuity purchase requirement constitutes a ‘clawback.’ We have removed our references to that term to characterize the mandatory annuity purchase.” Even the Washington Post has backed off: issuing a correction admitting it was wrong to say that a portion of the personal account would be taken back the government. “The Washington Post incorrectly reported Thursday that the balance of a worker's personal account would be reduced by the worker's total annual contributions plus 3 percent interest. In fact, the balance in the account would belong to the worker upon retirement …” Either Pelosi doesn't know this and is simply wrong. Or figures she can use these kinds of lies to spread anxiety and confusion... 620wtmj.com