Bush Hints at What He'd Do in Another Term- "new era of ownership"

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush22jul22.story

Bush Hints at What He'd Do in Another Term"new era of ownership"
By Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writer

July 22, 2004

WASHINGTON — For the first time in his reelection campaign, President Bush on Wednesday hinted that another four years in the White House could bring major changes to the nation's healthcare and retirement programs.

In a half-hour address to 7,000 Republican donors, Bush promised a "new era of ownership" that would give Americans more control over their health insurance and savings plans and make healthcare less expensive. Though he offered few specifics, it was the president's strongest suggestion yet that he would forge ahead with a plan to create private retirement savings and health accounts.

Many Democrats have opposed such plans, saying they place benefits further out of reach for middle- and low-income people. But on Wednesday, Bush indicated that he would offer the proposals on the campaign trail in populist terms.

"During the next four years, we'll help more citizens to own their health plan, to own a piece of their retirement, to own their own home or their own small business," Bush said. "We'll usher in a new era of ownership in America with an agenda to help all our citizens save and build and invest so every person owns a part of the American dream."

The president's comments signaled a return to his 2000 theme of "compassionate conservatism," a mantra intended to appeal to moderate swing voters who supported government's role in such areas as public education while also appeasing a conservative base wary of the mounting budget deficit.<snip>


===============================================================
"new era of ownership" means End Soc. Sec & Medicare & employer provided benefits-GOP Cong. Ryan (R-WI) -From Congressman Ryan's Speech quoted by BCG Insider newsletter volume 3 - edition 4 - July 2004, and as he has stated at CATO and on Fox News)


This election is the most important in decades. It will determine if we ....return to the undesirable history of Social Security and Medicare and other defined benefits....

Social Security and Medicare are based on collectivism.

(Election will determine if we continue to move to) ... a society built on individual responsibility.

IRA and Health savings accounts should define the future

Employers should facilitate access, not provide benefits.

[truthisfreedom]

1. more vague, please, sir, and could we have a side of non-specifics with

that?

populist my ASS.

[louis-t]

16. 'SIR'!, Who you talkin' to!

:crazy:

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

46. 'New era of ownership' = 'We own you!'

This is more than undoing the New Deal. It's turning back the clock to the days before the Constitution was ratified.

But that's been the plan all along, hasn't it? To do away with our system of goverment and replace it with a corporate oligarchy.

[ender]

2. the "ownership society" has been a goal for a bit...

its been mentioned a couple of times...

basically, its a return to pre-WWII, pre-depression capitalism, and the elimination of the middle class.

woohoo!

[BiggJawn]

4. Like the days of Morgan, Vanderbilt, and Carnegie?

When the rich travelled in the first-class cabins and the "peasants" rode in the bilge?

"Ownership society"...And like anything else in this world, you don't have any money, you don't "own" shit.

[Beetwasher]

3. To "Own" Their Health Plan and Retirement?

What a complete load of nonsensical meaningless bullshit!

I guess putting stuff in "populist" terms means talking gobbledygook nonsensical meaningless bullshit.

[BiggJawn]

7. Yeah, "own"...What a crock.

Hey, how much retirement can YOU "own"?
Me, maybe a can of cheap cat food 4X a week and hot water on Thursdays.

[judge_smales]

Bush talking about

Individual responsibility. What a joke!

[Neshanic]

5. "I got it, I got it, nope, I don't got it government." On your own kids.

[hatrack]

6. Me and my friends will own more of America than ever before

It'll be a whole new era of ownership!!

[Birthmark]

8. But what if I don't WANT to be owned?

Will they acquire me in a hostile takeover? :shrug:

[deminflorida]

9. No problem George....so reach in your pocket and give me

back every cent that I have paid into Social Security along with all the other Americans that have paid. I'm 43 years old...give me back every nickle right now and I will invest it.

Sorry, if it was just me you could do it right???, but for everyone else???

It would bankrupt the Federal Treasury....

No you want to steal my money, make me start over and create a new Gilded Age for America.

Oh, I forgot to add...I'll take that back with accumulated interest as well, thank you.....

[abelenkpe]

33. good point

Why should those who have been paying into this system have to start over? It's a nice succinct way of pointing out how much of a rip-off this idea is. There is nothing 'compassionate' about it.

Next to the administration's desire to do away with overtime and worries that our election will be inaccurate (or worse rigged), this idea of doing away with businesses providing health care and social security is a serious danger to our society. Of course businesses have been trying to get around providing health care for some time now by only giving workers 30 hours a week making them part time employees and therefore ineligible for benefits.

It just shocks me how the administration can put such a spin on this idea in an attempt to make it seem like a benefit to workers.

[sandnsea]

10. The Boss Will Own YOU

That's the kind of ownership he's talking about.

[Hotler]

92. Damn straight!

The workers are about to take one big step back to the way labor was treated in the 1890's. Robber Barons: American industrial and financial magnates of the later 19th century who became wealthy by unethical means.

[FlaGranny]

11. He's going to use "populist" terms -

That's the only way they have a chance in hell of winning anything. They have to make enough people think they're really "populist." Hopefully, not as many people will be fooled by these lies next time around. Populist - my ass!!

[alphafemale]

12. "new era of ownership" "Is he bringing back slavery and...

debtors prisons?

[LeftHander]

13. Campaign 2000 he lied like a rug....

Said he was a moderate...Govern from the center....

In fact many of his "promises" he did the exact opposite....

[Zech Marquis]

14. a much more honest answer for this would be

a return to the serfdom era--the peasants working for peanuts, while the ultra ricj laugh at us from their ivory castles. Purely Middle Ages crap! :argh:

I don't think I should be working my ass off while Paris Hilton is making another "reality" series, AND that my hard labor only makes her life that more enjoyable :grr:

[ixion]

15. Notice how the la times gives the chimp a pass on compassionate

conservativism?

"The president's comments signaled a return to his 2000 theme of "compassionate conservatism," a mantra intended to appeal to moderate swing voters who supported government's role in such areas as public education while also appeasing a conservative base wary of the mounting budget deficit."

So there it is... the CC mantra is just an empty campaign gimick. But does the mainstream media call him on it? Oh my heavens no. :eyes: :grr:

[Joanne98]

22. The LAT is a corporation first.....

A newspaper second. The "liberal" media is only socially liberal. They're all on the same page when it comes to economics. the "market" is the enemy. But no-one will dare say it.

[thecrow]

17. "Employers should facilitate access, not provide benefits."

Hell I wouldn't even HAVE health insurance if it weren't for my employer providing them!

And if they do away with this, I couldn't afford it!
Would my employer then give me the money to get my own health insurance. I don't think so!

[AndyTiedye]

18. They Own the News, They Own The Country, They Want to Own US

[lovuian]

19. GoodBye Social Security GoodBye Medicare!!!

and will Americans just sit back and watch this thievery!!!

Republican Party will be No More after this and the Democrats better
step up here

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

45. Goodbye retirement! Goodbye overtime! Goodbye 'Golden Years'!

As Colorado Governor Lamm suggested in 1984 (no shit!), the elderly have a duty to die. Surprisingly, he was a Democrat!

[JerseygirlCT]

20. That GOP holy grail: Privatization strikes again

Yup, we'll all "own" our health plans and social security. They'll cover nothing and be worth nothing, but hey, we'll be "owners"! Meanwhile, insurance companies,drug companies and all variety of financial services institutions will continue to rake it in...

[Joanne98]

21. Which means privatizing the entire goverment.

More word games. How many idiot Murkins will fall for this one I wonder?

[skippysmom]

23. Kiss your SS, Medicare and health insurance goodbye

I don't know how any one with a brain could vote for this sucker.

[yellowcanine]

24. Wow! Don't get too far out on that thar limb, Georgie - wouldn't want

too many details, now. Heh.

[xchrom]

25. bwahahahahaha! bush is really riffin'

these days -- i never knew he had a sense of humour.

what?!?! -- he's not kidding?! bwahahahahaha! he's either dumber than i think -- or there's a bunch of americans....

[Catfight]

26. Okay, Bush can start leading by example instead of lip service.

Start owning up to his military record FIRST!

[0007]

27. 'Ya mean us fucking slaves get to own something?

A major change to the nation's healthcare and retirement programs? In other words HMO's without Social Security.

[Fovea]

38. I am disabled, and mostly too sick to work

and I have to pay my own health care out of pocket, yeah, i already own my own health care pretty much, and it sucks thank you.

[bleedingedge]

79. Yeah, but...

See, if you *could* work and if you *could* earn a decent wage, this would be a terrific idea! So all we need is 0% unemployment and 0% poverty and this plan make perfect sense.

</sarcasm>

[The_Casual_Observer]

28. This is their "Jewel"

This is the essence of the rw push. according to these people, everybody would be a lot better off if the corporations and small business owners would no longer be responsible for anything but making a profit for the owners. Anyone unfortunate enough to end up working for these companies would have to find a way to pay all of their own medical expenses, and entirely fund their own retirements without a safety net. This is much like the situation prior to WWII, when if you were older and sick or ran out of money, you simply died. Compassionate conservatism my ass.


Of course, only a fool would opt for this alternative, and the demand and competition for government jobs that still pay all the old "new deal" benefits will increase massively, thus creating a bizarre form of a socialist elite poverty state.

[abelenkpe]

30. "only a fool would opt for this alternative"

I agree.

But do you realize how many fools are out there?

I can't see how expecting workers to spend their hard earned money on purchasing their own health care and retirement funds will help anyone but insurance companies. Every other aspect of our economy will dwindle. Who will be able to buy a home or car or computer when a large chunk of their earnings is going towards providing basic health care for their family? With wages not rising (and in many cases going down, for those who have been laid off and forced to except lower paying jobs) and the cost of housing, gas and food going up I cannot see how having the option of 'owning' ones health care and retirement plan will benefit the economy or population at large.

And isn't the federal government working to outsource many workers in order to do away with the burden of providing those 'new deal' benefits?

[Arbustosux]

29. New Era of Ownership = Bringing back Slavery

African Americans aren't using those rights anyways....

[struggle4progress]

31. "Ownership Society" means "Undo the New Deal" ...

Cato's description indeed makes it clear that the “ownership society” aims to "free" us from social security and related programs. No wonder Grover Norquist adores this idea! So "Economists for Dean" were right to say that "ownership society" is nothing but "a code word for dismantling the social safety net that provides real economic security." And when you've got nothing left to lose, why, "Congratulations! You're an owner!"

... An ownership society empowers individuals by freeing them from dependence on government handouts and making them owners instead, in control of their own lives and destinies. In the ownership society, patients control their own health care, parents control their own children's education, and workers control their retirement savings ...
http://www.cato.org/special/ownership_society/index.html

March 23, 2004
'Ownership society' is Bush’s aim
By Sam Dealey
... President Bush plans shortly to ratchet up his campaign rhetoric on economic issues by announcing expanded individual investment plans — including for education, healthcare and retirement — under the rubric of building an “ownership society” ...
... “It’s coming up, and it’ll be part of the campaign,” said Grover Norquist, president of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform and an informal White House adviser. “Whenever I see people asked about it, say it’s coming” ...
http://www.hillnews.com/news/032304/ownership.aspx

Dec 22, 2003
Beware of the "Ownership Society"
... personal reemployment accounts are an inappropriate solution for the current labor market that has been characterized by permanent and long-term job loss and particularly weak job creation. I suspect, that this proposal is a trojan horse that is a stepping stone toward eliminating the unemployment insurance system. Like the health savings accounts that were inserted in the Medicare bill and the soon to be unveiled tax advantaged savings plans that are designed to gradually replace Social Security, the Bush approach is to take incremental steps under the guise of centrist and compassionate policy, to eliminate the social safety net. These are sold as providing greater choice but risk leaving most Americans with less security and less confidence in their future ...
... The ownership society is a code word for dismantling the social safety net that provides real economic security ...
http://econ4dean.typepad.com/econ4dean/2003/12/beware_of_the_o.html

Feb 05, 2004
Hey David Brooks...Where's the Ownership Society?
... Bush ... could not care less about helping people become "self-reliant pioneers" by providing them "survivorship tools". The tax-sheltered plans were dropped. The Wall Street Journal's David Wessel reports that other cuts in community college funding will more than offset the funding for the job training and the money for personal reemployment accounts are a joke:

While loudly offering grants to community colleges, the president quietly proposes cuts elsewhere in the budget. "Despite the president's welcome initiative, community colleges may well end up with less funding," the American Association of Community Colleges says. The Personal Re-employment Account experiment -- which the administration hasn't tweaked to enhance chances of congressional approval -- amounts to $50 million, or $6.25 per currently unemployed worker. And the "reforms" to employment and training programs look like a cover for squeezing spending, though apples-to-apples comparisons are difficult.

This shows that the 2004 version of compassionate conservatism is a total joke. They'll probably claim that the rising deficit did these programs in...but I don't see them backing off on the 2 trillion in tax cuts or reining in the Pharmaceutical Subsidy bill ...
http://econ4dean.typepad.com/econ4dean/2004/02/hey_david_brook.html

Published on 12/24/2003 in the Boston Globe
Bush's 'Ownership' Scam
by Robert Kuttner
... Radical conservatives think that government help undermines individual initiative. But government programs like the GI Bill, FHA loans, Pell grants, community colleges, and federal aid to public schools allowed a lot of individual hard work to pay off. Social Security institutionalized the custom of retirement, which stimulated supplemental retirement plans. Guess who opposes all this?

Decent wages and benefits and real government help are what Bush's ownership society leaves out. To Bush, ownership means that the lone individual is made the sole owner of the problem. Lost your job? Better get yourself some new skills. Corporation cancelled your pension? Better sock away more savings. Company health insurance plan raising premiums and copays? Congratulations! You're an owner! This ownership society walks away from the social investments of the past six decades that actually made the United States a society in which most people could reasonably aspire to be owners. It leaves people on their own with a fistful of tax credits that most people can't afford to use ...
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20031224104335.asp

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

32. Yeah, where some Americans "own" the others. I wish I was in the land of

cotton!

[Tight_rope]

34. Bush still talking outta the side of his neck. All Rubbish....Nincompoop!

[Tight_rope]

35. Bush still talking outta the side of his neck. All Rubbish....Nincompoop!

[DBoon]

36. You are owned!!!

In the ownership society, each of us will be the property of our corporate lords.

It's the "New Feudalism"

[Fovea]

37. What lame ass bullshit

A society built on individual responsiblity is not a society, it is a collection of barbarians. We have seen, since Reagan, the temporary apotheosis of the great American individualist, from here on in, the John Wayne model will sink like a rock, possibly never to arise again... which is good, because it only works in the wilderness.

Society is about interdependence, not about every man for themselves and devil take the hindmost.

What a crock!

[JCMach1]

39. A return to 1929-- in more ways than one

:(

[NJGeek]

40. Notwithstanding the total lack of credibility ...

... but a plan with talking points like "Employers shoulf facilitate access, not provide benefits" are going to go over with the electorate as well as a fart in church. Bush* is toast.

[OK_DemX2]

41. Facilitate Access??

Would that be the facilitation that I now have whereas my small business employer cannot afford to pay health benefits, so I pay for 3/4 of mine and have to cover my family with COBRA benefits at 13% of my annual salary?? Thanks but no thanks, this corporate rape fest in the medical, energy and insurance industries has to be stopped. They send the money (attached to the agenda) and the RW happily feeds it to the masses (un-informed/apathetic) while the top 5% (read corporate bosses, politicians, inherited wealth) continue to broaden the gap to the point that middle/lower class workers can no longer survive without capitulating power to them in exchange for basic needs. This is the "Compassion", they don't know what they need anyway, so we will tell them and then take over for them, in the interest of the greater good.

P.S. Did anyone else catch the story about the returning soldier who won 4 mil in a scratch off lottery ticket and was going to use the money to "get out" of bankruptcy?? Is it just me, or shouldn't our soldiers (the ones that are actually getting shot at for this shit) be able to thrive on their pay instead of subsisting on food stamps/welfare/bankruptcy??

[Zynx]

42. That is so much bullcrap that wouldn't work.

[MasonJar]

43. I have no doubt that there will be new Medicare and Social

Security plans/all bad. Also we will doubtless invade Iran and Syria...maybe even Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We will need to enlist the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts and of course the Indian Scouts. All of the National Guard will be dead.

[bobbyboucher]

44. Slave ownership.

Can't wait.

[recidivist]

47. Be careful folks. A majority of the public favors S.S. personal accounts.

And for good reason.

It is hard to know how to react to this thread. It is clear, for one thing, that many posters do not have the slightest understanding of what Bush is actually proposing for Social Security. A simple description would be a universal 401(k) option with a baseline guarantee that everyone would receive at least as much as Social Security promises (but cannot pay). A transition program would pay the benefits of those already vested in Social Security and too old to switch. Participation would be mandatory (you might have the option to remain in conventional social security or to switch, but you would have to do one or the other.) No one will be left out. Most people will receive significantly higher retirement benefits. People of modest means will accumulate a nest egg. There is no downside risk and enormous upside potential.

A second disturbing fact is the failure of so many folks here to recognize that a majority of the American public already favors this approach. This should not be surprising. Half the country already has IRA's and 401(k)'s, and most of those who don't wish they did. This ain't 1935. A substantial majority knows how it would work and understands that, in the long run, everyone is better off in a fully funded, investment based system.

As I have argued before on many threads, the Democratic Party is digging itself into a deep hole if we let the Republicans monopolize this issue. An investment option in S.S. is favored not simply by a majority of all voters but, even more crucially, by an overwhelming majority of voters under 40. There is going to be a generational change, and the ground is shifting rapidly.

"Bush proposed it, therefore it must be bad" is not a very sound position. Sometimes I think if Bush came out in favor of getting out of bed in the morning, half of DU would hide under the covers. We ought not to concede winning issues to the other guys; we should scramble to preempt them. Good Democrats like Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerrey came out for private investment accounts years ago. Why are so many people here so afraid of the idea?

[drscm]

48. Get real! Bush has already proved that Medicare Reform

means protecting the interests of insurance and pharmaceutical companies at taxpayer expense.

I am sure that the financial corporations will be crying when they are being paid to administer *Bush's new "universal (401(k)) option.

Of course, we have seen the benefits of privatization a la Halliburton in the military sector. It's too bad that they can't afford to pay our soldiers or provide them with adequate housing because it may cut into the billions that are being paid to the Uncle Dick's company.

Yep. I trust Bush - who acclaims all poor people are poor because they are lazy - to make judgments about what is good for others.

Bull!

[xchrom]

50. i doubt that a majority of americans believe any

such thing -- they might believe in something similar provided it was fully insured by the government -- but that would be atithetical to what the anti-tax crowd wants.

[papau]

51. I disagee - the same payouts could be possible via SS life Insurance

with less fuss and expense.

The only thing private accounts do - besides adding another trillion to the deficit - is put in another expense deduct that enriches Wall Street and comes out of our taxes.

If it is cool to invest in Stocks - then let the SS Trust fund invest in stocks.

My God - they want to sell this with an expensive option that guarantees against loss - the net return will be low on those accounts unless the gov absorbs the balance guarantee risk - in which case we add a few more dollars to the deficit.

Again - there is nothing that private accounts provides not provided by the current system except a death benefit - so add life insurance if that floats your boat.

The System as currently structured has no problem unless you consider the SS Trust cashing in a few Gov bonds beginning in 2019 a problem - perhaps the rich object to the need to raise their FIT rates at that point to get the cash to repay those bonds? Can we say repay the money the rich are currently stealing from SS - as the the tax cut for the rich is paid for via the Soc Sec payroll tax surplus?

And we know that there will be pressure to cut down on that $1 to 1.2 trillion cost of transition via excessive benefit cuts - sold to the middle class as reasonable because "look at all the money your stocks are going to make".

And again - if it is stocK returns are what we are chasing, then simply let the SS Trust invest in stocks - rather forcing it to lend the money to the rich to finance the tax cut for the rich - cause the rich never want to pay back what they steal from the middle class.

[peacetalksforall]

52. Maybe in theory, but it takes honest corporations and I don't see many...

Ben and Jerrie's, they say Costco is. Would you let Enron or Arthur Anderson own you? Theory requires honesty - it isn't there. Because they want you to be in one place - traceable, ignorant, too busy to educate yourself, in debt, with a barely squeaky or silent voice, praying, submissive, and believing every word their Corporate Progaganda Networks tell you. You can't deny their agenda about us.

Theory is an empty vessel when the cup is owned by the likes of all the people who work for the cabal and PNAC like think tanks who glamorize the abstract with our stupidity in mind. The good old American watching out for each other is dead in the right wing and they are about as predatory as any living thing can get.

Do you think they are they going to turn it over to someone honest to make it work? Fuggedbutit.

[charlyvi]

63. We're not afraid of the idea

We simply don't trust Bush* to do it in a fair and equitable manner. We think he is looking for any, ANY, excuse to eliminate the system altogether. After all, this is a man who has Grover Norquist as an economic advisor.

Actually, Social Security is not the problem. Pat Moynihan had a great idea when he advised raising the FICA tax in the seventies. Social Security itself is solvent; well, would be if the government stopped dipping into the trust funds. It's when you add Medicare into the mix that the situation becomes problematic. And look at his solution to the prescription drug problem--a pharmaceutical givaway.

I repeat, it's not that we are so much against accounts as we do not trust bushco* to do it right--it would turn into another giveaway to his donors. And the American public would be screwed.

[recidivist]

72. I.e., you will support full funding as soon as a DEMOCRAT proposes it?

Fine by me. I think one of the great careers of this generation is there for the taking for the first serious Democratic presidential candidate who embraces Social Security reform. He will win the election and proceed to make history. Within five years, most Democrats will be claiming it was our idea all along.:)

[abelenkpe]

65. this is why

http://www.harpers.org/TrillionDollarHustle.html


Check it out. I'd be interested in your response to this article.

[papau]

69. Excellent article :-)

:-)

[recidivist]

71. It's a lengthy evasion.

First, thanks for posting the article. I did read it. Its tone is superficially compelling but if one reads critically, you will note that the author doesn't bother to run the numbers. Without that, you can't join the debate. Long atmospheric passages about the history of Social Security, the nobility of its purposes, and the dastardly political opposition don't answer the tough questions. In the end, this article is simply irrelevant except as an exercise in evasion.

If you are willing to step back from the day-to-day politics for just a moment, the current debate is bizarre. The fundamental choice is between the current pay-as-you-go system, which relies on ever-higher taxes on our children and grandchildren, or a fully funded system, in which benefits are based on savings and investment over the 40-plus years of a person's working life. Pay-as-you-go was attractive, at least in the very short run, when the ratio of workers to retirees was 45-1, 30-1, even 10-1. But those ratios reflected an immature program with relatively few qualified retirees and short lifespans. Those days are long gone. The worker-retiree ratio is dropping like a rock to 2-1, which is adopt-a-granny territory. In such circumstances, full funding is ALWAYS better. This ain't rocket science. How can anyone be opposed to actually having the money in the bank?

Seriously, we are deep in "the emperor has no clothes" territory here. The advantages of full funding are so self-evident that it takes a strenous effort at misdirection -- the article you post is a good example -- to overlook them. A heavy majority of Americans under 40, having grown up with IRA's and 401(k)'s, already favors reforming the system. Sooner or later, a major Democratic figure is going to embrace reform, and at that point it will be like the Berlin Wall coming down. The change will be so rapid people will look back in very short order and say, "How could we ever have been so stupid?"

Social Security currently takes 15.3% of a worker's income, of which roughly two-thirds goes to fund the retirement portion of the program (which is all that is under discussion at the moment). In round numbers, let's say Social Security retirement takes 10% of your income for your entire working life. In return it pays a very modest stipend, barely poverty level for low income folks, despite their being heavily favored by a redistributive bias in the benefit formula.

Those same dollars, invested over a 40-plus year period, would generate a retirement income several times higher. The exact multiple would depend on how one invested -- stocks, bonds, CD's, a mix of the above -- but the point is, any investment based strategy will outperform current Social Security by a wide margin. (We are talking here about investments in qualified, regulated, diversified funds, which is how such a system would be set up. It would be like the federal employees' Thrift Savings Program.)

Yes, markets go up and down, but the comparison is not a close call. If you doubt this, fine. But here's a clinching observation and argument. Let's make the investment option voluntary. Let those who prefer to switch do so. Let those who prefer to remain in the current S.S. system do so; we can come up with a funding mechanism for them. What would happen?

Well, both proponents and opponents of full funding have the same answer: virtually everyone under 40 would switch. That should tell you something.

[The White Rose]

73. So where's the money going to come from?

As I understand it Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system which was designed as a social contract between one generation and the next i.e. you pay for your parents, your children pay for you, and so on. Now if "virtually everyone under 40 would switch" to these private accounts, the money that would normally be used to pay for their parents needs will be siphoned off for themselves. So who pays for this generation's parents? Is Bush proposing that the government will provide bridge funds to fill the gap (thus plunging the nation into even deeper debt) or does he expect that America will return to that "Golden Age of personal responsibility" when everyone looked out for their own, and a financially crippled middle class and rampant poverty for seniors was the order of the day?

Now, if we only had a surplus...

[cap]

74. it tells me that a lot of people under 40 do not understand investing...

basic investment theory says that a portion (depending on your risk tolerance) should be invested in highly conservative assets and a portion (generally small) should be invested in highly risky assets and you will get a better return over the long haul. Statistical studies have proven this to be true. Read any college textbook on finance and the section on investment portfolios talks about how to weight your portfolio.

Investments in conservative assets have a much lower rate of return than risky ones (this is called the risk premium). Retirement planning includes your personal investments, a pension (for those of us still getting one) and your personal investment (ie 401K plan, IRA, personal investing) + Social Security. Remember, do not put all of your eggs in one basket. Your investment portfolio needs to be allocated into 8 independent sectors.

Social Security is the part of your retirement that is guaranteed. It is the most conservative part of your investment portfolio. Markets go up and markets go down. You do not want your money to be in a down market during a major illness when you are old. You will not be at a point in your life where you can wait for your investment to pan out.

Not everyone will do better than Social Security. THat is the logical fallacy of your argument.

The idea that Social Security isnt going to be there is scare tactics by the Republican party. If we want to make up any shortfall, we can increase the payroll tax by a 1/2 to 1 per cent. There have been studies by the labor unions on this. The rich do not want to pay for your retirement. That's all. If there's a population bulge, we can open up immigration for young people to ease any discrepancies.

Some people will invest wisely; some foolishly. Some people are cheated out of their investments (I notice there is no call in your post for punishment/reimbursement of the MCI/Enron/etc investors) The price of foolish investment in your old age is destitution. It is too high a risk to take. Not everyone is financially savvy or has the education to be so. When we are old, we can not all get out and work to make up for a mistake in investing. My mother tried one day of data entry after her quintuple bypass and couldnt do it. We, as a society, do not wish to see elderly destitution. Therefore, we hedge our bets and opt for a portion of our retirement to be guaranteed in Social Security.

Chile has tried the personal retirements accounts and there were winners and there were losers. Most people were unhappy about the destitution caused.


Talk to the Enron/MCI/ investors in our own country. They thought they were set for life. People in their late 50s and older cant make up for those mistakes. They are screwed.

Go back and read economic history and read about the hardships of the elderly before social security.

How are you planning on taking care of your mother if her investments do not pan out? How good an investor is your mother? That is the person you are planning on leaving out in the cold.

[lovuian]

75. Well that sounds good on paper but let me give ya reality

"Those same dollars, invested over a 40-plus year period, would generate a retirement income several times higher. The exact multiple would depend on how one invested -- stocks, bonds, CD's, a mix of the above -- but the point is, any investment based strategy will outperform current Social Security by a wide margin."


What happens when the Stock Market crashes .....there is NO GUARANTEE that your stocks CDs and Bonds will go up.....But there is a GUARANTEE
that you will get a check from Uncle Sam...and be raised with inflation


I have heard the Republican spin and it sounds good but people have been burnt on their IRA's 401k's and Bonds and CD's since Bush has been in office

We have seen Ken Lays get people's retirement in mutual funds and crash them...these people will be left with nothing..cause they went for pie in the sky

Social Security GUARANTEEs that check...Bush's plan is just another way to screw the AAmerican People

[recidivist]

86. You live in a very strange alternative reality.

In every Social Security private investment account plan I've ever seen, there would be a diversification requirement. If one elected to invest in stocks at all (which is not required), one would be buying into broad based funds operating under federal oversight. It would be akin to the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan. You would not have the option of putting your entire nest egg into the next Enron.

Secondly, every Social Security private investment account plan I've ever seen includes a baseline guarantee. No one is going to be left to starve.

Make it voluntary. Let people make up their own minds. I am confident most people would switch. You should not be afraid of giving folks a free choice.

[abelenkpe]

88. Well I haven't reviewed any

social security private investment account plans. However, I worry that the federal government is not doing a very good job at oversight. Many people could lose out if they invest without proper guidance. How much would that guidance cost them on top of their investment?

I recognize that stocks generally have greater earning power than most types of investments. How would a voluntary plan work? What would happen to the money one has already put into the social security system? Would an individual be able to take that money and re-invest it? Or could they choose to stop contributing and be able to collect on what they have already contributed at retirement, while having a new plan take over for the rest of their working years?

How would this effect payroll taxes?

I am under 40, but at 36 have been paying into the system regularly for over 16 years. My 401k has only recently risen to the level it was 3.5 years ago. So my attitude on investing and taking on new debt is understandably 'let's wait and see.'

Also, I don't have much faith in the current administration offering a lot of choice when they tend to say absurdly absolute things like: 'You're either with us or against us.' There have been so many scandals involving Mutual Funds and Wall Street that is not unreasonable to expect people to be skeptical. Besides, history has shown that our society has done well under the New Deal so we shouldn't be so hasty to do away with it. But I am open to reviewing a plan put forward that offers true choice. Otherwise, I say we keep the system 'as is.'

How do you view the desire to do away with businesses providing health insurance?

[recidivist]

90. How it would work.

There are many differences in detail among Social Security private investment plans, but the core idea is pretty simple. Taxpayers would have the option of diverting a portion of their current Social Security taxes into an approved investment vehicle. These would be qualifying plans offered by financial institutions -- banks, mutual fund families, etc. -- and operating under broad federal guidelines as to diversification and prudent investment rules. The regulations would be similar to those governing pension, annuity, and insurance plans today. This would all be backed up by a federal guarantee of a minimum safety net benefit.

In practice, people would be faced with choices very much like the ones we encounter today with IRA's, 401(k)'s, or the federal Thrift Savings Plan. You have the option of participating or not, and then you decide among a range of plans. You can always switch plans down the road as you gain experience. This isn't terriby complicated, although the fearmongers can and do try to confuse people with breathless questions about the administrative details.

Your questions about handling the transition are perfectly appropriate. Obviously people already receiving Social Security benefits will continue to be paid. Younger people, with years of contributions into Social Security but still working, will need to be credited with their contributions to date. The reform plans vary in how they handle these costs. Some would borrow the money (perhaps through a one-time issuance of a special purpose bond), some would raise taxes, and some call for general revenue support, which would of course put pressure on other government programs. Given the size of the problem and the split-the-differences tendencies of Congress, probably a combination of methods would be used. But one way or another, it will be done.

Certainly these are important choices, but the main point to make is that the very same choices will have to be faced down the road if we DON'T fix Social Security now. Social Security has a huge unfunded liability. This is not something created by the transition to a fully funded system. The transition to a new system simply requires that we face up to the unfunded liability NOW, as opposed to waiting until the Social Security System as a whole goes into the red in about 15 years. It will be expensive to do now. It will be even more expensive then. (Since I will be retired by then but you will still be working, it's even more skin off your back than mine if we wait.)

Yes, the stock market, in the short run, goes up and down. In the long run, however, the economy is going to grow. Like you, I took a hit in my 401(k) thanks to the bursting bubble and the recession. But remember: the Dow was in the 700's in 1980 and was pressing 13,000 when it peaked in April 2000. The three year slide that followed gave back three years' worth of gains and, even with the recovery over the last year, the Dow is currently bobbing about 10,000.

So let's all think: hmmm ... if I'm a buy-and-hold pension plan investor who rode the market long term from 700 to 13,000 to 10,000 today, am I money ahead today? For some reason, this question confuses come people.

The Dow, of course, is hardly the only or best measure. I personally would like to see the ROI pendulum swing back at least a bit from stock appreciation to dividends. That, however, is a tax policy question, so lay it aside for now. In any case, the economy is going to grow over time, however bumpy the road is from here to there. Safety lies in diversification and long term average returns. A fully funded Social Security System that encourages people of modest means to participate in this growth would be a very good thing.

[recidivist]

91. Health insurance.

I have little people waking up so I must be brief. I'll return if time permits.

There are lots of problems with linking health insurance to employment. These include limited options, reductions in or outright loss of coverage as employers try to control costs, job lock, etc.

There are also lots of problems with government controlling health care. Scarcely a decade ago, the Clinton Administration labored long and hard and produced HillaryCare, a plan to put the entire country into federal HMOs with regional gatekeepers ("health alliances") rationing care to meet global budget targets. Now the consensus in the Democratic Party seems to have moved toward Canadian style single payer, in which the rationing would be centralized. (This would be very bad news for the Canadians, who are accustomed to coming here for services they can't get, or get in a timely fashion, in Canada. I suppose suppose some Caribbean island would get rich by setting up shop as the world's mecca of quality, on-demand medicine.)

The alternative is empowering individuals to make their own choices. Any such approach requires at least three key elements: everyone would be required to obtain at least catastrophic care coverage; low income people must be subsidized (probably through a means-tested voucher) up to the level of a standard plan; and people with chronic medical conditions must not be stranded. In short, a consumer sovereignty model requires a welfare component.

As long as that is done, however, there are lots of advantages to allowing people to tailor their coverage to individual and family circumstances. If I choose to smoke, drink, or get fat, there is no reason you should subsidize me; I should pay the premiums for my irresponsibility. (The moral issue aside, that would also give me a wallet-based incentive to lose the weight.) If I choose to run to the doctor for every sniffle, I should incur at least some cost for excessive utilization. If I keep myself in reasonable shape, avoid nasty habits, and use doctors only sparingly, I should be able to save some money. In the long run, we would have a medical system (1) that is more responsive to individual and community needs and (2) in which both patients and providers have at least some incentive to watch costs. That, at least, is the theory. I'd like to give it a try.

Just remember: none of this is George Bush's idea, so don't let the "because Bush said it ...." folks scare you off. The ideas have been around for years.

Oh well, the pitter-patter of little feet. Gotta go ....

[abelenkpe]

67. Also

Not requiring businesses to provide health care insurance seems to me to only benefit insurance companies. Are you aware how much it costs to provide individual health insurance for your family right now? If I were laid off and had to purchase my own insurance it would be 1000.00 a month for my family not including dental. That plan would also cost more in terms of co-pay prices and not cover as much as the plan I currently have with the company I work for. I can't see how this will lower health care costs for the average worker. How do you see this as a good thing?

[mulethree]

82. Sounds a lot more expensive

Everyone needs to put in enough to get by should they live to 90 years old.

With SS everyone puts in enough to live to say 72 and the excess from the many people who die before 72 covers the people who live beyond 72 and the few who live to 90 and beyond.

So instead of contributions to cover 7 years of benefits (72 average) everyone needs to contribute/save enough for 25 years of benefits (90)? What happens if you live to 110? If you died at 58 then presumably the account would go to your heirs?

I love 401K and MSA accounts, except that so much of it goes into mutual funds and you end up with a few asset management companies holding huge stock voting leverage instead of 50,000,000 shareholders each researching and voting their shares. We own the corporations that screw us, but most of us shirk the ownership responsibilities and let fund managers vote for us.

[InkAddict]

49. Yup, you bet

in about 30 days, his buddies will own home, cars, furnishings, pets, health, the penny jug, our labor, our kids labor, our grandkids' labor. There will most definitely be a new "era of ownership" on the junk that's left after the street sale (NO GARAGE)! Most likely to neighborhood vultures that could afford better! Kerry/Edwards better make good use of that last contribution and send a last meal.

[Solly Mack]

53. Does he mean slavery?

sounds like slavery to me

[Hekate]

54. Can you say "Social Darwinism"?

Bring back the debtors' prisons! Whee! Get those widows and orphans some useful employment at the workhouse! Yay! A begging bowl for every disabled vet! Oh boy!

How I looooove that compassionate conservatism.
>sarcasm off<

Hekate

[charlyvi]

55. It didn't work in 1800's England

and it definitely won't work here. DO THESE PEOPLE EVER, REPEAT EVER, READ A HISTORY BOOK? Or do they think the problems that Social Security and Medicare were created to solve just went away?

[Solly Mack]

56. No

besides, they never saw a problem that needed to be solved...they only see what they think is the natural order of things.

[charlyvi]

57. Lets see how many freepers remain freepers

when the very young, very sick and very old start to die from lack of services. When it happens to their families. There aren't enough rich people IN this country to withstand that. The power of the poor in history can be awesome.

[Solly Mack]

58. You're correct

once it hits home, it becomes personal

and you're so awesomely correct about the power of the poor!

[DaveSZ]

59. Bush's base:

-Top two percent of income earners

-Large corporations

[Solly Mack]

60. That's his base but isn't sad how so many others "think" they're his base?

how they vote against themselves when they support Shrub

[charlyvi]

64. Bushco* has a brilliant strategy really

he dangles a wedge issue bone in front of them (abortion, gay marriage, religious ferver) so they won't notice he's gutting their economic well being. They're being gang raped and begging for more--in the name of God.

[Solly Mack]

66. I like the way you phrase things

[TahitiNut]

84. Bingo! Early 19th Century England (and 19th Century US) ...

... is EXACTLY where the Republican economic policies are leading. Intentionally! There are people who aspire to such times, where they and they alone have wealth and everyone else is 'guilty' of being poor.

It's now again the age of punishing victims. Victims of drug addiction are punished. Victims of economic opression are 'pressed into military service. Victims of unwanted pregnancy are punished. Income derived from one's own labor is taxed the highest, while income collected from the labor of others is taxed the least.

Inequity of income is the worst in the US in nearly a century!


The higher the Gini ratio, the more inequitable the income distribution. The privileged wealthy are made more wealthy, and taxed the lowest, while labor is taxed the highest and receives the least compensation for the wealth labor creates in recent history!

The Gini ratio in a typical "banana republic" is .45 to .55 while the Gini ratio in Japan, Norway, Denmark, Germany and other free democratic nations are unanimously below .33. Indeed, most such nations consider it alarming to have their Gini ratio creep up above .30 -- it means poverty in the working class.

Taxes on corporate profits are at record lows!



Corporations (and the wealthy) are collecting record-setting high shares of the "national income pie" while labor is getting screwed!

[Jazzgirl]

61. It means they intend to turn the US into a

kleptocratic, fascist, oligarchic plutocracy and do it right in our faces!

[scottxyz]

62. "Ownership" is the latest Republican stealth word

Like...

- "leave no child behind" (= defund education)

- "clear skies" (= polluter protection")

- "pro-life" (= old men in Congress control your womb, unless you're a member of their family)

- "personal responsibility" (= for Martha, not for Bush/Harken or Lay/Enron or Cheney/Halliburton)

- "deregulation" (= let Enron loot California; enable the 2003 East Coast blackout)

- "privatization" (= selling public utilities and then either jacking up prices or dismantling the companies)

...etc.

More ranting here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2045433

[gatlingforme]

68. hee, hee, that's good. I found "ownership" so indicative of their

latest line of BS. Also he is calling himself the "Peace" president now. LOL

[LiveWire]

70. what the f....

New era of ownership? The last time I checked, if I own something ITS MINE!!! I can break it, burn it, eat it if I have to. But God dammit its mine! So this new era...it will make my ownership of said properties ore than they used to be? Is Chaney going to come to my crappy apartment and staple my newly bought candy bar to my forhead? Yay! Just what I've always wanted! A head injury! And its all thanks to my good friend Dubyah.

Oh, and another thing...Americans cant have more control over something THEY DONT HAVE! Thank god the University of California system covers my medical bills for now! Someday I might have to pay for my STD medication! But other Americans arent as lucky...I know people who cant afford gas, let alone health insurance. And savings? HA HA HA...laughter is my only tool to fight the pain that is my poor life. You know what the Bush "tax cut" got me? A whopping 14 cents more on last years IRS check. Thats money in the bank baby!

Private savings and health accounts? PERFECT! I once got treated for a burn at the local ER (McDonalds grease got into my eye) a long while back when I was 16. It cost me about $525 dollars, not including the meds. Dammit, I only made minimum wage there! That was like 4 paychecks worth of med bills. And from what I heard, medical costs in this country have gone UP!

So Mr. Bush, I'd love to see it from your point of view, but I cant get my head that far up my own ass.

[demoman123]

76. Most Americans own nothing at all.

Not even their cars.

[recidivist]

87. That's a great pity. Reforming Social Security would change that fast.

A private investment account in Social Security would allow low and moderate income folks to accumulate an estate. This is a good thing in the first generation, and a potentially revolutionary thing over 50 years.

[demoman123]

89. Yep. If those private accounts had been available four years ago...

people could have accumulated stock in Enron, or in some of the fine companies listed below.

"Prosecutors are investigating the major investment banks for perpetrating fraud on small investors. The analysts for these banks gave higher ratings than the stocks deserved because the banks wanted to get investment banking business from those companies.

Here is a list of suspect companies and stocks."

MORGAN STANLEY
Agile Software
Atmel
Concord/EFS
eBay
Loudcloud
Sabre Group
Veritas Software
iBeam Broadcasting
Transmeta
AT&T Latin America

US BANCORP PIPER JAFFRAY
Buca, Inc.
Comverse Technology
Emisphere Technologies
Esperion Therapeutics
JDS Uniphase
Natural Microsystems
Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.
Onyx Pharmaceuticals
Therasense
Triton Network Systems.

LEHMAN BROTHERS
Broadwing
DDi Corp
Razorfish
RealNetworks
RSL Communcations

MERRILL LYNCH
24/7 Media
Aether
Excite@Home
GoTo.com
Homestore.com
InfoSpace
Internet Capital Group
LifeMinders

J.P. MORGAN
Technology Partners International
International Rectifier
Infineon Technologies
Epicor Software Corporation
CCC Information Services
Participate.com
Vicinity
Intertrust
Mypoints
Concord EFS

GOLDMAN SACHS
StorageNetworks
Loudcloud
GeneProt
Crosswave Communications
Willis
Crown Castle
Exodus
WebEx
Global Crossing
AT&T
WorldCom
360Networks
Winstar Communications

UBS WARBURG
Triangle Pharmaceuticals
Atmel
Espeed
Netopia
Flextronics
Interspeed
Avant Immunotherapeutics
JDS Uniphase

SALOMON SMITH BARNEY
Level 3 Communications
Williams Communications Group
XO Communications
Focal Communications
Adelphia Business Solutions
RCN Communications
Metromedia Fiber Networks
AT&T
Global Crossing
Qwest
Rhythms NetConnections

CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON
Digital Impact Inc Synopsys Inc.
Numerical Technologies, Inc
Numerical Technologies
Agilent Technologies, Inc
Winstar Communications, Inc.
NewPower Holdings
Aether Systems
Razorfish

BEAR STEARNS
Sonicwall
Muse
CAIS Internet, Inc
Digital River
Internet Security Systems
Packeteer
CacheFlo
Agilent Technologies
Andrx Corp
Pets.com

http://www.stockbroker-fraud.com/taintedstocks.htm

[Art_from_Ark]

93. It's legal for companies to do "bait and switch"

It's legal for them to make misleading financial statements.
It's legal for them to give their miserable executives huge pay raises while the companies themselves are going belly up.
It's legal for companies to cut off their best divisions and sell them to insiders.

Who the hell in their right mind would trust their retirement to this kind of system???

[OETKB]

77. The White House Conduit

David Brooks speaks of "The Ownership Society" in today's New York Times(December, 2003):
"In his State of the Union address, the president will announce measures to foster job creation. In the meantime, he is talking about what he calls the Ownership Society.

This is a bundle of proposals that treat workers as self-reliant pioneers who rise through several employers and careers. To thrive, these pioneers need survival tools. They need to own their own capital reserves, their own retraining programs, their own pensions and their own health insurance."

I believe Mr. Brooks is the conduit to float their next fuzzy policies or slogans. As usual they are short on substance or reality.

[Imalittleteapot]

78. We want to own

our GOVERNMENT George - and we're going to take it back in November.

[CBHagman]

80. Translation: More tax breaks for those with disposable income.

In other words, if you live paycheck to paycheck, there's really nothing much that's new.

And if you need temporary help, the screws will be tightened.

He can insert his culture of ownership into his rectum.

[InkAddict]

81. What's that old edumacation saying, You are what you learn?

http://www.tarpley.net/bush3.htm

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/04_Global/040625.Bush.2screen.html

more: http://www.empowermentresources.com/info2/childrenlearn-long_version.html

Guess 41 and Babs did one H of a job w/the kids!

[digno dave]

83. The more I own the happier I'll be, goddammit!!!

[Rob in B_more]

85. I wonder who is going to own me? ...Haliburton, Murdoch,

or Exxon

[hyphenate]

94. You know

I am really looking forward to the debates with * and Kerry. Fact is, people were oblivious 4 years ago when the moron looked so stupid in comparison with Al Gore, but I think more people are aware now of how great an idiot he is, and the debates should be hilarious. Of course, the pukes will likely try to control things by asking for a list of questions first so they can prepare their idiot, and of course they might try to have a right wingnut commentator as the ref, but if everything goes truly fair, it should be the biggest display of complete ignorance ever presented.