# Bush comes to visit..



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Bush is coming to NoDak! Kind of neat but if it is to help Hoven run against Conrad in the next election I think we would be better served if he would not bless us with his visit. We would be foolish to send a rookie to Washington and give up all that seniority. I'm not so sure why he so interested in visiting our state without some kind of motive!


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

I would guess the motive is to get North Dakotans to put the heat on the delegation to support his social security plan.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I most certainly hope that doesn't work. Privatizing social security will not hurt more people than it will help.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Weedhopper writes


> Privatizing social security will not hurt more people than it will help.


At the ripe old age of 16 you are an expert on Religon, Reloading, Shotguns, Rifles, Ballistics, Foreign Policy, the Education system, and now Econmics and the list goes on and on and on and on.................... :bowdown: :toofunny: :bowdown: :toofunny: :bowdown: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Easter is coming so I thought I would let this one pass and let him try and find his path in life where he is not suckling from :lol: another's cow!


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

I am 52 and I don't think Bush's plan is going to work.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I like the idea of a private account that the Gov cannot spend on Pork Barrel projects! Simply put what is the down side if you receive the same dollars you are entitled to but my kids or yours if you have any may not need SS when they reach retirement age! How about the surviving spouse? Currently if one person dies the income to the household drops! Yet fixed costs for housing and taxes remain the same. What I heard tonight makes sense, that your private account would go to your survivors. I know or have known a number of widows that had to sell the house soon became welfare recipients once that other income was gone.

This results in increases in taxes to everyone and we pay anyway, but the quality of life for these people is degraded! Are they better served staying in their home or being wards of the state!

To me this in not a Rep vs Dem issue but one of proactive action that will cost less now than in 15 years. I kind of laughed when I heard one of the opponents say that we have a 5 Billion dollar reserve in SS in 15 years. The reserves they speak of are the IOU's the Gov has written over the past 40 years that will come due. So how will we pay for the IOU at that time! More taxes that will reduce commerce and increase inflation!

When I was a junior in High School my history teacher told us that in 40 years about the time many of us would be thinking of retirement that SS would be in trouble to the point that many of us would have to continue to work longer at a time when our earning capacity starts to diminish based upon history.

At 52 you are less marketable than someone of equivalent qualifications that is 10 years younger. Unless one is self employed it is a fact of our world today! I ask you if you where given a choice of putting money into an account with a average 5% return that you control and it cannot be taken from you, or an account that may give you at best a 2% return that the funds can be borrowed from and that payment amounts from them would be set by a third party that can change the goal line on when you receive your money which one would you have chose?

What we heard is a proposal tonight! Nothing more, I think it bears looking at and now is a better time to do it than 15 years down the road.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Aythya said:


> I am 52 and I don't think Bush's plan is going to work.


Well, I'm 28 and I want control of my money. Have you seen how the government is with money?????????? Good lord, it needs to be switched. If you can't see that you won't see anything. :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

zogman said:


> Weedhopper writes
> 
> 
> > Privatizing social security will not hurt more people than it will help.
> ...


I don't profess to be an expert on much of anything, I just try to pick up information wherever I can. If you choose to ignore such things, that is your choice.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Alot of you peole are missing the point what SS is to this country. Why do you think SS was started in the first place?? It was because people when left on their own did not prepare for their futures. The government had to step in and create SS or we would still be like Mexico and have to watch old people starving in the streets.

The percentage that will put money into investments is fine, but exactly who is going to guarantee those investments are sound. Also what provisions do we need to make sure the people who supported SS are at the top of the list for benefits just in case there is another huge depresion. You youngsters should look at the pictures of the depression this country had, the stock market can crash overnight and has before.

I just don't want people who didn't support the system fully get to reap the benefits fully. What will we call this list of non-supporters??? If all hell breaks loose we will call them homeless and a burden to society. Just don't come running to the rest of us if your grand scheme fails!!8)


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

buckseye

I understand your point, but I believe something needs to be done. At present direction that SS is taking I doubt that I will see a penny of it in +/- 30 years. I'm glad to see someone stirring the pot and hope something good comes out of it.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Longshot.. I'm with you I have hope too!! Don't ever give up hope!!! Maybe we should add to SS insted of taking away from it. Could it be that simple??? 8)


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Social security is not a retirement plan but only a part of a retirement plan. For me it is the least risky part of my retirement plan. I would think that a few tweaks here and there would be better than a major tweak with a lot of uncertainty. If it is a partison issue, I can't believe that a Republican would somehow support a program without thinking that it somehow shifts more of a burden on other than the upper income groups. There has to be a hidden agenda if the fat cat Republicans are supporting privatization of social security. Somehow this is going to save them money because in reality the rich do not need the benefits of a social security program. I need more information in order to make an educated judgement. Right now I think that it will be good for Wall Street and for the rest of us???? I need more infromation.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Remmi,

Try to have a civil discussion without insulting the participants. "If you can't see this you won't see anything." Your views are no more correct or wrong than mine.

I disagree with Ron on at least one point. This *is* a Republican vs. Democrat deal but it shouldn't be one. The President is actively pushing his plan and has not made many efforts at middle ground or finding compromise. The Democrats have, likewise,made it a partsian issue and have not offered any constructive ideas in response.

My problem with Bush's plan is this. First, it will rob Peter to pay Paul in the sense that he advocates taking funds from SS to fund the new system. This creates more debt.

Second, it penalizes people my age by potentially reducing benefits, forcing a higher retirement age, and adding to the burden of younger workers. Bush has stated that if you are 55 or over you are probably not going to see reduced benefits but if under 55 you probably will.

Third, and Buckseye alredy made this point, left to our own devices we have a poor track record of managing money and saving for retirement. I am concerned that under Bush's plan it will be too easy to take large risks (and the Bush admin has said there are no guarantees that private plans will result in more retirement - just look at the stock market) and end up with less than SS. At that point, those people who made lousy investments will be coming back to the governnment and asking for help. There are many fine examples of that happening already with bailouts for nearly bankrupt corporations.

Finally, I agree that there needs to be a very careful, deliberate and objective look at SS. I was no Ronald Regan fan but one thing he did was commission a bipartisan group to examine SS and make recommendations on improvements. This is what Bush should do first, before charging ahead with his plan. He needs buy in from more than he has now, including many Republicans who have stated they have reservations about the plan.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am over 55 and don't really have a dog in this fight. The only reason I think Bush's plan is good, is because it will benefit my son's and grandchildren if implemented as I currently understand it.

First I think you have a choice you must be with social security and the new investment, or social security alone. I don't think anyone will be left to their own devices. You will pay in and the government will put it where you designate.

Only a fraction, and small at that, will be privatized. If I understand this correctly it will only be in low risk bonds. I know some people have said that social security earns less than one percent. I think it is three percent, but there is no money in the fund only iou's. The very low return bonds still give you five to six and one half percent. Using the rule of 72 (divide interest rate into 72 and it will tell you how many years it takes you money to double) it would take a 2000 investment 11.02 years to double. Compound that 2000 becomes 16,000 in 33 years. That is from a single year, think of the earnings when you realize that the next year investment will be in 32 years the following 31 years etc. Of course a small faction of you social security would not equal 2000 per year I was just using it as an example.

If government secure bonds were the investment no one should loose money, and everyone would be required to participate fully, the only difference is you have a choice where your money goes.

I think Bush is here to bring pressure to bear on our democratic representation in Washington. People will be calling them and this idea is gaining ground.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Aythya writes!

My problem with Bush's plan is this. First, it will rob Peter to pay Paul in the sense that he advocates taking funds from SS to fund the new system. This creates more debt.

Currently we are spending the surplus dollars that are collected. The Gov is writing a IOU for the money. Try and follow this for a moment.

Since this money is in bonds that the Gov has agreed to pay that money comes from the General Fund. Which means that one of two things will have to happen. Other programs will need to be cut and taxes raised to meet that need, or the program is cut or eliminated.

In the event that the last takes place would it not be prudent to have some of that money in an account that the Fed Gov could not take?

To me this is such a simple issue if you look past the scare tactics that the opponents are raising! By not putting money into private accounts it reduces the amount of dollars on the books that the Gov is borrowing today, thus allowing them to spend more money today, but promising to pay it back at a later date!

If all dollars that where ear marked for SS where used for SS and only SS most recipients would be receiving about 4 times the amount they do today including those that never paid in anything but are receiving disability etc.

Bush is the first Pres to say that we have to change this practice. That means projects like the bridge between Fargo and Moorhead would still have been built but not in the grand lavish style it was.

Look at any Fed Court house. Pomp and grandeur are everywhere. But if those accommodations where built using as durable and long lasting material for less money it should be. These projects happen because of the surplus in tax collections disguised as SS tax. All these dollars go into the general fund. If they are not being used they should be saved or the tax lowered.

It is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Dorgan and Conrad do not want to give up the pork barrel projects anymore than Delay or any other Sen. Pork gets them elected over and over.

To satisfy the current liability projected by Greenspan we will see 60% tax rates in 20 years to meet just the entitlement programs. With tax rates at those levels commerce will slow unemployment will rise creating a greater burden on the system.

I have read a great deal upon this subject over the last 10 years. The only way to avoid what Bush is right in pointing out is to divert the money going into the Gen Fund of the US Gov.

I can here Dorgan now, if we allow private funds then the next time we have a farm disaster like drought we will not have the money for a relief program. Never once looking at a ways to reduce the pork barrel projects to fund essential needs. This boils down to them giving up some power in Wash and returning that back to the tax payers. Less dollars in the Gen Fund will mean less pork barrel spending.

Dollars set aside in accounts that we cannot spend until retirement means less demand upon the system at a later date. Is it wrong to think that this could in 60 years eliminate SS as it is today? Things change and SS is a antiquated program that either needs to be modernized or allowed to die its death.

It worked for my parents and should work for myself but I am certain it will not work for my kids.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

:thumb: Right on Ron!!


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Ron,

A major fallacy in your argument, in my estimation, is that you believe that the federal govenment won't or can't get its hands on this "private" retirement fund. Originally the SS fund was supposedly sacred too. But, it only takes an act of Congress to change things. And it is not just one party or another that works the magic. If you review history there are plenty of examples of both parties making changes in law that are in direct opposition to what previous admins and Congress had in mind.

We have an incredible budget deficit now. It seems to me that there are more pressing issues that require immediate attention than forcing a fix for something that isn't broken at the present time. Bush's trip to Fargo is really about turning up the heat on Conrad because he is up for re-election. His SS visits in the next few days are to the so called red states with Democrats who are up for re-election. ND is a Republican state so his trip here isn't to convince anyone. He is preaching to the choir. I don't have a problem with this as every President and member of Congress uses similar campaign tactics. But I don't believe for one minute it is anything other than that.

And as long as you mentioned scare tactics, Bush is not clean on this one either. He is using the arguement that something has to be done now. The fact is, even if you believe the system needs fixing the estimates the Republicans are using is that SS will be bankrupt around 2042. Congress estimates 2050. Thus, it would seem to me that there is time to examine rationale, bi-partisan solutions. Bush has four years, what is the rush?

Again, I agree that they system needs to be carefully evaluated to determine how to improve it. But, this plan, with very few specifics other than some incredibly general statements on privatization, is not the answer.

A true leader does not offer simple solutions to complex problems. At least not without some careful study and consultation with interested parties. That is lacking here and to be fair, that leadership is lacking from both parties. In fact, it is lacking on more issues than just SS.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ahtyra what other issue that affects each and everyone of us is more important? Health care? Tort Reform, deficit,National Debt, Education?

See each and every issue I listed does not have a quick fix. Yet each one has been a campaign issue for the last 20 years. Yet Bush is the first one to address these issues, maybe not always correctly but he has them in the front line during a time when no Sen or Leg is up for reelection until 06. My point is that he is pushing change and causing a lot of discomfort for the status quo that our elected officials tend to seek. Dialog is a good thing. It creates accountability. SS is about accountability to promises made and lies told for the last 40 years.

Now back to one simple point you made on the last entry. " Originally the SS fund was supposedly sacred too. But, it only takes an act of Congress to change things. " History shows that the original drafting of the bill set aside the money in a trust account that was not tied to the Gen Fund. But FDR saw this as a way to pay for the war so the funds have always entered the Gen Fund. You are right about nothing being secure. Heck Congress could pass a tax bill that would take 99% of all the money set aside in current IRA"S and a whole lot of other things. But I can guarantee that more people will take notice when it is there personal account during debate on this issue than take notice now when spending bills go forward using SS tax dollars.

When you impart ownership to someone for something it changes the whole concept of what you have. Few understand that SS is not in its own account. Again if we have 5 billion in gov bonds that are to support SS and we currently are running a defect and projections indicate that we will continue to do so for a while, where and how will these bonds be paid back from?

Not trying to sound harsh but all the things you listed sounded almost like Harry Reid. Why is it that in 6 years we went from a huge crisis that the Dem's including Reid ran on in 98 to we do not have a crisis today? During that 6 year period we have been attacked, we have suffered a recession, entered into a war, created another entitlement program and a new Dept of Homeland Security. So during a time of surplus dollars in the Gen Fund to now when we do not have a surplus and this bombshell in liability from entitlements how is not the right time to head off the bursting of the bubble.

I have seen nothing that refutes what Bush has said about the looming crisis. Just fear of losing Pork Barrel Power! Dem's if they cannot scare people about SS offer nothing to fix it! You are right about Conrad having the heat turned up and rightly so. It is going to be very very hard for him to reconcile his past statement and actions if he votes to block any attempt at reform. He has been the one that said SS needs to be taken out of the Gen Fund, and now he is saying that we need to keep it in the Gen Fund.

He is decrying the defect, yet has offered up spending bills that would have pushed the deficit higher than it is today even if the tax cuts where reversed. If people would really listen and watch how he votes and acts beyond farm programs he will end up just like Dashle.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Aythya

So, how long are we to wait? Until its too late? There is nothing wrong with getting the ball rolling and trying to insure it is fixed before there is trouble. Who knows who will be in office next and further down the road. Bush is trying to do what he thinks is best for the country and I hope he does.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

I never said wait. I said that a quick fix is rarely ever successful and often ends up being worse than the original issue. This issue needs some additional consideration. If it was such a hot topic why all of a sudden is Bush now offering up a rapid solution.

Ron, I find it interesting that you seem to think Bush is the first one to try to do something. There have been myriad attempts to "fix" SS, deficit (hey what happened to the surplus anyway?), taxes, medicare, medicaid, health insurance, etc. Most of them suffer from the same problem.

So my point is this, again. Bush's very sketchy plan is no solution because it has not undergone objective scrutiny via a bi-partisan effort. As long as the country continues to be heavily divided on this issue (and the others previously mentioned) we can expect no real progress. In the end, the partisan fights will mean a solution akin to putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. And at that point the Republicans will blame the Democrats and vice versa, the moderate Republicans who are concerned about Bush's plan will be blamed by the very conservative Republicans and the public will be left holding the bag.

There are reasons that this hasn't been "fixed" in these many decades. There are way too many groups with varying views on the issue and there isn't even agreement on if a problem exists. And despite the fact that one generation may think its a great idea, another mobilizes to oppose any change.

I find it interesting that on one hand there is a move to privatize this under the auspices that "its my money I should be able to do as I please." But on almost every other front the overwhelming view of the country is that government should provide all kinds of goods and services and somehow there is an entitlement. Why else do we keep electing the same people who make the same basic promises (and I don't just mean incumbents this includes everybody who runs). Elect me and this is what I will get you.

So let me ask you this question. If privatization is the way to go, would you support a plan that ends SS, lets say as an example for all people born after 2010, protects the benefits for those already covered, and puts the onus on the individual to save for his/her own retirement? Then there would be no danger of the government moving funds around as they would all be in private accounts for those born after 2010. That way, you would truly be in charge of your own destiny.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

I can't believe I'm saying this but oh well! I think Bush is truely trying to accomplish something and solve some problems, its the mothod of which he is trying to do this that I have a problem with, not to mention the problems he is ignoring. He claimed to be a uniter I have yet to see it? Using SS to exclude people from public gatherings can't be a good thing. Can it? Yet he does it. Even you hardcare rightwingers must agree that W is very influenced by the corporate/high income world. We haven't heard anything about raising taxes but his State of the Union address sounded expensive to me! Kind of liberal actually. He can't do what he talks about without raising taxes plain and simple.

TC


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

went to the airport and saw air force one land, that was cool. my buddy had a ticket and shook the President's hand along with an autograph... turns out he was given an extra ticket that was mine if i wouldn't have went to biol :evil:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

You bet I would support getting rid of SS as we know it today.

Like I keep pointing to but have not said. We should refer to SS as *TAXES* because that is all they have ever been. There is not a trust fund as most of us refer to one.

So let's call a spade a spade. Bush is the first one that has offered up a solution to the slight of hand tactics to tax and spend the American peoples money. It is that simple. When it no longer goes into the Gen Fund and remains in your control they cannot spend it. Simple.

Now that does not mean they will not borrow money to spend different issue, but that is being exposed as well. This is the first step in creating a fiscally responsible program. So far the only solutions I have heard from the opponents is to raise taxes.

Watch and check your C-span schedule and listen to the GAO, CBO, the director of SS and the questions asked of them. If after listening to the reports and comments from the SS over site committee I believe you will understand what I have already known is that it either ends as an entitlement program or you privatize the collections so that it remains solvent.

It was pointed out yesterday that 5 people could enter into PSSA and end up with different payment levels after contributing the same amount of money in. It was correctly pointed out that the amount of total benefits would still be above the current programs by as much as 30%.

SS is nothing more than another income tax hiding behind the use of the word trust fund. It never was and never will be a trust fund unless those funds are held in a manner that the Gov cannot spend them.

ANY OTHER DESCRIPTION IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I heard some more about how this plan works. Apparently what happens is that you put your money in a fund that makes money, and when you get to the magic age the government takes said money and dishes it back out to you like it normally would with social security, only with lower benefits. I cannot support that. There is a better way to save social security from eventual bankruptcy than lowering benefits to our seniors than this twisted word maze of a proposal.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I can't believe you guys haven't figured out Bush needs 80 billion dollars for another year of war and he wants to have a free hand with the general fund. It's all smoke and mirrors men, don't be fooled!!! 8)


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

I have to come down on Ron's side of the SS issue. One thing everyone needs to remember is that this plan would entail a fairly small percentage of your SS.... I think I have heard 4 or 5 percent with a $1000 cap per year. (I could be wrong on the exact numbers...) The other 95 to 96 percent would be treated pretty much like it is today. I would happily place the max amount I could into a program where I have the potential to earn more money. You also have to remember that SS has essentially become a supplement to peoples retirement funds. Most folks can't live on SS alone. My understanding is that the investment in these personal accounts may very well be optional. There are still a lot of details to work out, but I'm all for having discussions on how to fix the problems. Kudos to Bush for taking on the issue. The Ted Kennedy liberals are already trying to scare the older folks in this country into thinking that Bush is trying to take away their benefits. That is just plain wrong. Even if people don't embrace this personal savings plan the president has proposed, there needs to be some serious discussions on how SS can survive in the long run.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

To get back to the original post about Bush's visit.... I have had the pleasure of seeing two presidents. Reagan visited UND back in the 80's and I took the family to see George Bush at the Target Center down here in the cities last fall during the campaign. The atmosphere around both events was phenomonel. My kids still talk about how they got to see our president. I'm glad I had the opportunity to take them.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Your friend George!! Can somebody explain to me how we can fix the social security program by taking money out of the social security program? I thought it was running out of money and that is why it needs to be fixed? It seems to me that we need to put more money into the program. If you think that this is for your good and not the good of fat cats I have some land for sale..... George W knows who his friends are and you are not one of them.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

I wouldn't have gone to see him if I lived in Fargo, that is if I wasn't on the list of people that was not allowed to see him. I cant stand to see him on tv, I wonder if he smells of lies in person?

His logic escapes me! If I were going bankrupt would the solution be to take on more debt? Oh wait he thinks like a Republican, "Its not my money but I know how some can profit from the misfortunes of others" The Corporate Republican Agenda

TC


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Give me your... As I stated in my original post, George did not come to North Dakota because he likes us it is because he wants something that is very important to our state in the power vacumn of Washington. He wants the seniority of our delegation in Washington. He wants us to elect a rookie Republican delegation and send them to a capital where seniority is synonymous with power. He is not concerned with our voice in Washington because if he was he would realize that our best representation in Washington comes from senior elected officials and not the kindergarden variety. The present delegation has done an outstanding job of representing North Dakota in Washington and we would be fools to send a "rookie" delegate and give up our seniority. He is only concerned about George W and his agenda. I daresay that George Bush knows very little about North Dakota and has never been here but to spread a political agenda.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have said this before, but again you may want to check out FactCheck.org. They have an article about MoveOn,org who has some advertisements about the proposed social security system. Many false claims by MoveOn.org.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Nice timing!! Probably a good thing that George came to North Dakota to pump up his social security plan before he cut the farm bill. Politics at it's best!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

DJ do you know how much of the dollars alloted end up going to farmers and how much goes to other programs attached to the Farm bill?

That is where the cuts from what I read will be. Also is an increase in spending less than projected really a cut?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Dont know the details of the farm plan anymore than anyone knows the details of social security. Even George W struggles to explain the details when anyone asks him. I was just commenting on the timing and not the programs.


----------

