« Waxman: Rove, White House Broke Nondisclosure Laws | Main | Pushing SB1000 For a Vote »

July 16, 2005


Ronald Rutherford

I am glad that at least one person is happy. :(
And at least you are right on one thing "the Democrats and interested third parties got way out ahead of the President and Congressional leaders on this one", by being obstructionist.
I will be one of the first to get less benefits and have latter retirement than past generations have received. In fact since 1983 I realized I sould not count on SS for retirement. Naturally it makes me happy that another 14% of my income stream will never be fruitful. Not. Obviously this ponzi scheme could not continue on indefinitely when Ida Fuller paid around $22 into SSA. On her first check she recieved $22.54 and by the time she stopped collecting in her 90's she was paid over $20000. Over an 100% dividend per month for 35 years. What an annuity!!!
Posted links are still not working so here:
Recently you had mentioned that Bush had no plan on the table. But if there was not a plan then how did the Democrats create this:
Even MoveOn.org had a contest to see if anyone would not loose under this "plan". They know by the numbers used in their calculation no-one is better off. They assume a 3% return on investment. Huh? Why didn't they have the rate of return flexible and see what the break even amount is. Or are they afraid of the truth?
If this is for your retirement why would you use 1 year T-bills? My dad has delayed retirement until the 30 year T-bills are closer to 6%. Closer to the historical average for the last 40 years. And even his calculations are very conservative on retirement.
So if you don't mind I will not be raising a glass. And neither will my wife since her SSA statement has no entry for retirement benefits.
Mi Dios lo que tiene ellos hecho?


Hey, no one's debating the fact that we've borrowed against the SS funds and there will be a potential shortfall in the midterm future. But what does that have to do with Bush's theories, which admittedly did nothing to make the program solvent, and only borrowed trillions more dollars? Raise a glass that your existing money was protected from swindlers who didn't want to pay back what they'd borrowed!

Ronald Rutherford

Whether or not SS funds are paid back or not, I still have little faith that it will benefit me at all. And with the Supreme Court deciding in 1960 (Fleming vs Nestor) as in "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress."

There is no my money or your money in a trust saved set aside for me or you.
Many on the left have envisioned that Bush's plan dismantled SS, but no proposal have any provisions of this flavor.
Democrats obstructed a dialogue that could have helped solved the problems now instead of kicking the can down the street. Democrats have been complaining that we did not get into bilateral talks with N Korea but could not sit down with Bush to discuss solutions. No?
One last point: Bush proposed a means test for benefits. Even though this is not in my self interest, I know that in some time in the future this will happen. I would rather have it happen now than at the 11th hour. Tick.tick.tick...
Keep up the good blogging. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29


Blog powered by Typepad