that the 30 years he mentioned (his January 17, 1935 speech) has been interpreted by his followers to have meant "forever".
He wasn't even talking of PARTIAL privitization, but total privitization.
What happened, I wonder?
What happened, I wonder?
Discussion is locked
Instapundit says he would have supported 401Ks, NOT the privatization of Social Security.
The rest of the site is Bushies talking to Bushies. Sort of a Shrubbery Fest.
'ought to ultimately be SUPPLANTED by self-supporting annuity plans.'"
Now that's a real blast from the past. Is it "ultimately" yet?
Thanks also for exposing the Dem's new leader in hypocrisy:
Another blast from the past: Harry Reid used to support Social Security reform: "Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector."
... that initially the tax rate was like 2.5% and FDR always recognized that this should eventually be "reformed" to be supplemented by personal accounts. Instead, the tax rate is now 12.4% of which Bush wants to allow younger workers to use a measly 4% of for something FDR himself advocated and envisioned. Currently our IRA's and 401K's are in addition to SS, but have to be funded after a rather hefty cut is taken for our "insurance".
The SS program was supposed to be the reliable insurance (safety net, if you will) portion of a three-legged portfolio including SS, private pensions, and personal savings. Unfortunately, over the last 20-25 years as there's been more and more pressure against the income of all but the wealthiest Americans and more and more companies abandon private pension plans, the other two legs of that three-legged stool have become much less reliable -- and now Bush wants to turn the reliable safety net into another risky venture.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email email@example.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
FDR and the New Deal Democrats never said social security would (or should) be anything more than a safety net insurance program. It is only in the last 40 years that the liberal Tax and Spend Democrats have been representing social security as a national government-paid pension (with seeming sum-certain personal property rights based on the accumulated value of the individual taxes paid) in addition to vestigal safety net payments to some widows and orphans.
The sad fact is that it never was (and still isn't) a pension plan, though that's what the politicians have misled us into thinking it is. It is surprising, then, that Bush too is confused about what it is or isn't based on all the lies about it that have been foisted on the public for the past 40 years?