Privatizing Social Security The Bush Mistake

[JoeTheEconomist]

10 years ago, GWB tried to introduce personal accounts into Social Security with a plan that remains a strawman for democrats to this day. This plan was dumb, not in the way that the critics suggest. The greed of Wall Street was the least of its problems. It was just a dumb idea.

His plan in total did little more than change the pocket which pays for Social Security. It was a shifty plan to push the cost of the system from Boomers to GenXers and Millennials (who really didn't even have a vote). The Trust Fund would have been exhausted more quickly, and our children would have been left to pay for his promise of benefits to anyone born before 1950. It was a bad idea.

I write on the issue of Social Security reform, and welcome a discussion on the 2005 plan. The longer piece can be found here : Bush’s plan would not have fixed Social Security

In short, there is no new investment capital created. No we weren't going to get 7% returns. No this plan isn't good for the poor. In total, his plan doesn't fix Social Security. It replaces Social Security with something that is entirely different. He wanted the system to be bigger. No bigger will not work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush was a bozo.

That's all.

 

[Ame®icano]

How can something that hasn't happened be a mistake?

 

[The Rabbi]

10 years ago, GWB tried to introduce personal accounts into Social Security with a plan that remains a strawman for democrats to this day. This plan was dumb, not in the way that the critics suggest. The greed of Wall Street was the least of its problems. It was just a dumb idea.

His plan in total did little more than change the pocket which pays for Social Security. It was a shifty plan to push the cost of the system from Boomers to GenXers and Millennials (who really didn't even have a vote). The Trust Fund would have been exhausted more quickly, and our children would have been left to pay for his promise of benefits to anyone born before 1950. It was a bad idea.

I write on the issue of Social Security reform, and welcome a discussion on the 2005 plan. The longer piece can be found here : Bush’s plan would not have fixed Social Security

In short, there is no new investment capital created. No we weren't going to get 7% returns. No this plan isn't good for the poor. In total, his plan doesn't fix Social Security. It replaces Social Security with something that is entirely different. He wanted the system to be bigger. No bigger will not work.

Yes it's Bush's fault. Every bit of it. Even things he didnt do were mistakes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

10 years ago, GWB tried to introduce personal accounts into Social Security with a plan that remains a strawman for democrats to this day. This plan was dumb, not in the way that the critics suggest. The greed of Wall Street was the least of its problems. It was just a dumb idea.

His plan in total did little more than change the pocket which pays for Social Security. It was a shifty plan to push the cost of the system from Boomers to GenXers and Millennials (who really didn't even have a vote). The Trust Fund would have been exhausted more quickly, and our children would have been left to pay for his promise of benefits to anyone born before 1950. It was a bad idea.

I write on the issue of Social Security reform, and welcome a discussion on the 2005 plan. The longer piece can be found here : Bush’s plan would not have fixed Social Security

In short, there is no new investment capital created. No we weren't going to get 7% returns. No this plan isn't good for the poor. In total, his plan doesn't fix Social Security. It replaces Social Security with something that is entirely different. He wanted the system to be bigger. No bigger will not work.

His plan in total did little more than change the pocket which pays for Social Security. It was a shifty plan to push the cost of the system from Boomers to GenXers and Millennials (who really didn't even have a vote).

GenXers and Millennials won't pay the cost of the system under the current plan?

The Trust Fund would have been exhausted more quickly,

And when the system was completely privatized, it wouldn't be needed.

 

[Toro]

You do realize that this is 2015, not 2005, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

10 years ago, GWB tried to introduce personal accounts into Social Security with a plan that remains a strawman for democrats to this day. This plan was dumb, not in the way that the critics suggest. The greed of Wall Street was the least of its problems. It was just a dumb idea.

His plan in total did little more than change the pocket which pays for Social Security. It was a shifty plan to push the cost of the system from Boomers to GenXers and Millennials (who really didn't even have a vote). The Trust Fund would have been exhausted more quickly, and our children would have been left to pay for his promise of benefits to anyone born before 1950. It was a bad idea.

I write on the issue of Social Security reform, and welcome a discussion on the 2005 plan. The longer piece can be found here : Bush’s plan would not have fixed Social Security

In short, there is no new investment capital created. No we weren't going to get 7% returns. No this plan isn't good for the poor. In total, his plan doesn't fix Social Security. It replaces Social Security with something that is entirely different. He wanted the system to be bigger. No bigger will not work.

His plan in total did little more than change the pocket which pays for Social Security. It was a shifty plan to push the cost of the system from Boomers to GenXers and Millennials (who really didn't even have a vote).

GenXers and Millennials won't pay the cost of the system under the current plan?

The Trust Fund would have been exhausted more quickly,

And when the system was completely privatized, it wouldn't be needed.

Because it would have been broken, you putz, which was the plan.

 

[Freewill]

Obama's lack of foreign policy causes a humanitarian crisis in the ME.

China's economy is circling the drain and we own them big time.

Racial unrest is greater now then any time in my life and I have lived through a lot.

And we are still bring up a System that Bush pushed but could not have done himself without Congress. Who knows what might have happened if the fear mongers didn't get their way. Just think of how the stock market would have grown with that giant influx of money. Nope don't think just sit back and bitch at Bush meanwhile Obama and the democrats have done nothing, but complain.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

10 years ago, GWB tried to introduce personal accounts into Social Security with a plan that remains a strawman for democrats to this day. This plan was dumb, not in the way that the critics suggest. The greed of Wall Street was the least of its problems. It was just a dumb idea.

His plan in total did little more than change the pocket which pays for Social Security. It was a shifty plan to push the cost of the system from Boomers to GenXers and Millennials (who really didn't even have a vote). The Trust Fund would have been exhausted more quickly, and our children would have been left to pay for his promise of benefits to anyone born before 1950. It was a bad idea.

I write on the issue of Social Security reform, and welcome a discussion on the 2005 plan. The longer piece can be found here : Bush’s plan would not have fixed Social Security

In short, there is no new investment capital created. No we weren't going to get 7% returns. No this plan isn't good for the poor. In total, his plan doesn't fix Social Security. It replaces Social Security with something that is entirely different. He wanted the system to be bigger. No bigger will not work.

His plan in total did little more than change the pocket which pays for Social Security. It was a shifty plan to push the cost of the system from Boomers to GenXers and Millennials (who really didn't even have a vote).

GenXers and Millennials won't pay the cost of the system under the current plan?

The Trust Fund would have been exhausted more quickly,

And when the system was completely privatized, it wouldn't be needed.

Because it would have been broken, you putz, which was the plan.

Yes, privatizing the system was the plan.

 

[SwimExpert]

GenXers and Millennials won't pay the cost of the system under the current plan?

If I understood the OP correctly, I think he is suggesting that what would have happened is that the Boomers would have enjoyed a reduction in SS contributions leading up to retirement, along with an increase or at least maintaining of generous benefits upon retirement, based on a short term artificially inflated SS trust. In the long term, we GenX folks and the Millenials behind us would have ended up faced with a more dire reality check, demanding an increase in SS taxes we pay, and reductions to benefits and pushing back of retirement age such that the substantially negative effects would fall on us and pass the Boomers by.

I've heard this before about Bush's plan, but have never had the details laid out to evaluate for my own self.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Bush was a bozo.

That's all.

Bush isn't the only one who has put this idea forward. Following his State of the Union speech the SSA analyzed 4 different plans of varying shapes. All of them had the same problem, how will you pay future retirees.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

How can something that hasn't happened be a mistake?

Mistake no. It was simply a stupid idea that was framed around really poor economics. There is a reason that their parents put their money in trust where these people couldn't invest it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Bush was a bozo.

That's all.

Bush isn't the only one who has put this idea forward. Following his State of the Union speech the SSA analyzed 4 different plans of varying shapes. All of them had the same problem, how will you pay future retirees.

Like that isn't an issue now ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

10 years ago, GWB tried to introduce personal accounts into Social Security with a plan that remains a strawman for democrats to this day. This plan was dumb, not in the way that the critics suggest. The greed of Wall Street was the least of its problems. It was just a dumb idea.

His plan in total did little more than change the pocket which pays for Social Security. It was a shifty plan to push the cost of the system from Boomers to GenXers and Millennials (who really didn't even have a vote). The Trust Fund would have been exhausted more quickly, and our children would have been left to pay for his promise of benefits to anyone born before 1950. It was a bad idea.

I write on the issue of Social Security reform, and welcome a discussion on the 2005 plan. The longer piece can be found here : Bush’s plan would not have fixed Social Security

In short, there is no new investment capital created. No we weren't going to get 7% returns. No this plan isn't good for the poor. In total, his plan doesn't fix Social Security. It replaces Social Security with something that is entirely different. He wanted the system to be bigger. No bigger will not work.

Why don't you give a 10 bullet point description of the plan so we know what you are referencing.

Most don't understand details.

All they know is that Bush said Social Security and reform in the same world and the left wing apes started flinging all kinds of s@@t all over the place. It never got beyond that.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

And when the system was completely privatized, it wouldn't be needed.

The system wouldn't exist which is a very different thing from wouldn't be needed.

The Bush plan pits promises that it can't fulfill. On one hand it is telling people that our children and grandchildren will not object to paying taxes that are nearly double what we pay. Bush isn't in a position to know who those people will elect.

On the other, it is telling workers that private accounts are theirs. Private accounts were always going to be run by a central administrator. Unless the money is in your name, it is entirely the same as what we have today. The money is invested by a third party in assets that you don't own. Bush can't assure you that the money is yours unless it is in your bank account - and that was never going to happen.

 

[Stephanie]

This is how slimy that Democrat party is . Cheering their own OBSTRUCTION at the State of the Union.

snip
At President Bush's State of the Union address, Congressional Democrats wildly cheer their own intransigence, obstruction, and reverence for the broken status quo. Showing their love for America's biggest government boondoggle, Democrats prove, once again, why they cannot be trusted with power.

and they haven't changed if anything they have gotten WORSE

 

[Blackrook]

I think everything the government is doing should be privatized.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GenXers and Millennials won't pay the cost of the system under the current plan?

If I understood the OP correctly, I think he is suggesting that what would have happened is that the Boomers would have enjoyed a reduction in SS contributions leading up to retirement, along with an increase or at least maintaining of generous benefits upon retirement, based on a short term artificially inflated SS trust. In the long term, we GenX folks and the Millenials behind us would have ended up faced with a more dire reality check, demanding an increase in SS taxes we pay, and reductions to benefits and pushing back of retirement age such that the substantially negative effects would fall on us and pass the Boomers by.

I've heard this before about Bush's plan, but have never had the details laid out to evaluate for my own self.

Thanks, maybe that's what he meant.

• Allow workers to invest a small portion of their Social Security taxes in individual accounts.

• Reduce the benefit formulas to factor in Social Security to reflect earnings from individual accounts

• Create a guarantee for those people born before 1950 for the benefits promised by the system

• Provide direct subsidies from the general fund to the system to fulfill the promises made by the system.

This sounds like those 55 and older at the time (2005) would continue as is.
Those younger would put some percentage, say 10%, into their private accounts and their benefit would be reduced by 10%. Adjusted for the time they started contributing, of course.

In the long term, we GenX folks and the Millenials behind us would have ended up faced with a more dire reality check, demanding an increase in SS taxes we pay

My understanding was we'd pay the same SS taxes, just divided between "Trust Fund" and private account.

and reductions to benefits and pushing back of retirement age

Reduction in SS benefits paid, theoretically covered by an even larger increase paid from the private account.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yeah, so a corporation can do stupid shit and ruin your entire fucking life. How stupid...Eff you Bush.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush was a bozo.

That's all.

Bush isn't the only one who has put this idea forward. Following his State of the Union speech the SSA analyzed 4 different plans of varying shapes. All of them had the same problem, how will you pay future retirees.

All of them had the same problem, how will you pay future retirees.

The same way you do today, knowing that eventually the entire system would be privatized.