English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Didn't he want to throw it overboard for unsecured investment accounts just a bit ago? Pulling the rug out from under those of us who have paid into it.

2007-09-24 15:19:01 · 23 answers · asked by oohhbother 7 in Politics & Government Politics

The boomers are not the problem. The boomers have been POURING money in, the excess of which has been 'borrowed' to pay for current deficit spending...in the face of tax cuts, no less.

2007-09-24 15:31:30 · update #1

23 answers

I wouldn't trust George Bush to tie his own shoes.
The concept of privatizing Social Security and allowing people to manage their own retirement is full of risk. It would be a boondoggle for stockbrokers, investment advisers, bankers, and financial managers - and, as long as the economy holds up, it could be wonderful for many savvy investors.
However, too many fools believe that the U.S. economy will never see another economic depression like it did in 1929. What they're too blind to recognize is that Bush's runaway 'war' spending has put American taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, which will ultimately cause our economy to collapse - probably within three years after Bush leaves office.
Then, stocks, mutual funds, IRA's, 401k's and other 'investment instruments' won't be worth the paper they're printed on. And all those 'savvy' investors who said, "Let me be responsible for my own retirement" will suddenly have their hands out begging for government relief. It's just like today: rich, profitable corporations are the first to demand government hand-outs, abatements, bail-outs and tax breaks, yet it's all-too-often those same well-to-do individuals in those corporate offices who oppose social welfare programs for the poor, sick, elderly, unemployed, disabled, hungry, underprivileged, disadvantaged, and homeless.
Social Security needs to be a government insurance program that is NOT available to everyone just because they "paid into it"; it should be available only to those citizens who find themselves indigent as they approach their golden years - and those who find themselves well-to-do should be grateful that their Social Security contributions helped make things better for those less fortunate citizens in our society. -RKO- 09/24/07

2007-09-24 15:35:20 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1 1

As you well know, the money paid into social security is not there, it goes into the general fund.

with all the baby boomers and now the wars all over the globe being funded with money that they don't have,

in short, no the president can't solve the problem and I don't trust anyone up there in DC to do it either. I just came back from living there and it is a cesspool of a city. They are only there to make sure they continue to exist.

I don't have an answer, I don't offer one. I just hope someone up there does not get a bright idea to fix it and take even more of the very little money that is left

2007-09-24 15:27:22 · answer #2 · answered by magnetic_azimuth 6 · 0 0

Social security is a huge pot of money for the politicians to blow on foolishness. And the liberal elitists have turned it into a giant welfare program for those who pay nothing in. And they all tell the working people that it is going broke. Baloney. No democrat or republican is going to solve the problems. Just raise the rates again like that crooked Carter.

2007-09-24 16:03:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I certainly don't trust Bush to do it. But if we're going to fix Social Security most likely someone is going to have to get the rug pulled out from under them.

2007-09-24 15:24:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

the Social risk-free practices equipment is truthfully on the line to interrupt down. Too many retirees and not adequate new workers shifting into the equipment. on the different hand, privatizing Social risk-free practices may well be a foul mistake... i haven't heard the different thoughts and the elderly electorate will never help taking down Social risk-free practices, so seem forward to a protracted, harsh fall down of the Social risk-free practices equipment

2016-10-05 07:40:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That isnt what he said at all. He is for allowing younger Americans to control more of their own money for a potentially better investment. He probably understands what FDR expected of SS when he introduced it- it was NOT supposed to be a retirement program as it is now.

2007-09-24 15:25:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Social Security's problems have been in existed since long before he arrived on the scene.

Presidents have come and gone and I long ago learned not to put my faith in any of them when it comes to this issue.

2007-09-24 15:23:48 · answer #7 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1 0

Alan Greenspan said that Social Security did not need fixing.

Thank you very Much

2007-09-24 15:26:01 · answer #8 · answered by ziggy 2 · 0 0

Who should we trust the no nothing Congress or Senate or a Man who has courage of his convictions and acts on those convictions with courage not inaction as the fore mention Congress and Senate

2007-09-24 15:23:20 · answer #9 · answered by F yahoo in Ash 3 · 2 1

Anyone that doesn't see the benefits of privatizing SS are doomed to a life and retirement of poverty.

You keep your "LOCK BOX" while I put all my money in mutual funds, IRAs and my stock broker so that I can afford to send my kids to private school, college, and retire comfortably at the age of 55.

2007-09-24 15:22:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers