[govtwatch4] Bush Aide Warns Social Security Will Be Reduced

[Guest guest]

wisepeople From the news I've learned that Bush is planning to have soldiers inIraq for the next 10 years. That plus the rebuilding of Iraq will beexpensive. Those expenses may be the excuse Bush uses to startreducing social security benefits in the near future.Most retired Americans and disabled Americans only source of incomeis from Social Security. Most Americans that receive Social Securityhave paid into the fund when they worked in public employment. As towomen that didn't work outside of the home, but were dependenthousewives, their husbands worked in public employment and paid intothe fund. Dependent housewives, except for the ones that can affordmaids, have been working doing chores around the home all of theiradult lives.As to Americans that are on Social Security due to disability adoctor has determined that those people have either physicalillnesses, mental illnesses, or both. Many people have suchillnesses, not to due their own faults, but due to the faults of thegreedy evil people that have been running the society for a longtime. Farming methods changing from natural methods to unnaturalmethods - herbicides, pesticides - causes a depletion of nutrientsand puts arsenic on our food. That makes people ill. Due to that manypeople have become ill and died. They were robbed of their very livesdue to that change in farming allowed by the government. What a dirtytrick.Then when people get sick as a result of unnatural farming methods,their doctors put them on prescription drugs. Many more people havedied from the side effects or overdosages of prescription drugs thanhave ever died from nutritional supplements. Now the pharmaceuticalcompanies have convinced the U.S. Congress to sign an internationaltreaty that will cause Americans' loss of freedom regarding vitamins,minerals, herbs, and other natural supplements. Many Americans havebeen studying up on such natural remedies, buying, and using them totreat their illnesses. Some people have saved their very lives usingsuch products.Unless the treaty about this matter is overturned before next Julywhen it is due to be ratified, not only the Americans who need theproducts for their health, but the businesses that manufacture suchproducts and their employees will be wronged and harmed. People willlose their source of employment. People will get sicker and die fromlack of supplements. What a dirty trick.Taking into consideration the information related above plus the factthat illegal immigrants receive mega-billions of tax dollars worth ofgovernment assistance each year, it should be guaranteed that legalAmericans' Social Security checks will not be reduced. MostAmericans' Social Security checks are too low to cover the costs ofsurvival needs. I read a news article that related that Gulf Warveterans receive $2300 a month from Social Security. However, formost Americans that have worked the hard work low pay type jobs theirSocial Security checks are about $500-$1000 a month, which isn'tenough to stay alive on. Churches don't make up the difference. Sooften churches are more concerned with building new auditoriums oreven new churches. Most often food banks have only non-perishablefoods such as canned foods-oversalted and metal contaminated. What adirty trick.Sincerely,Deborah ReidP.S.: The solution to Social Security funds running low in 33-43years is to go ahead and make a change in higher income people'sSocial Security withholding. I've read that currently income over$89,000 is exempt from Social Security withholding. That needs to bechanged so that all of the earnings, even those over $89,000, havewithholding. Thus doing away with the cap.====================================================================="WASHINGTON - Calling the current system of Social Security benefitsunsustainable, a top economic adviser to President Bush on Thursdaystrongly implied that any overhaul of the system would have toinclude major cuts in guaranteed benefits for future retirees."Let me state clearly that there are no free lunches here," said N.Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, at aconference on tax policy here."The benefits now scheduled for future generations under current laware not sustainable given the projected path of payroll tax revenue,"he added. "They are empty promises."Mr. Mankiw's remarks suggested that President Bush's plan to letpeople put some of their Social Security taxes into "personal savingsaccounts" would have to be accompanied by changes in the currentsystem of benefits.Throughout the presidential campaign and in remarks after he was re-elected, Mr. Bush focused almost exclusively on these accounts as acrucial way to shore up Social Security. Most experts have said thatthe accounts must be accompanied by other belt-tightening measures.When asked about cuts in future benefits, Mr. Bush, however, has saidonly that any overhaul should make no changes in the benefits forpeople in retirement or near retirement. The president has said thatoverhauling the Social Security system would involve "costs," but sofar he has not indicated what those might be.In his speech, Mr. Mankiw flatly rejected raising taxes as a means ofsaving the federal retirement system, which government actuaries sayis on track to become insolvent by 2042 if no changes are made to thecurrent law. Instead, he took particular aim at a specific feature ofcurrent law under which retirement benefits are linked to the rise inwages rather than the rise in consumer prices."Each generation of retirees receives higher real benefits than thegeneration before it," Mr. Mankiw said. Because wages typically climbfaster than inflation, he said, an average worker retiring in 2050would get benefits that are 40 percent higher, after inflation, thana comparable worker who retires this year.Mr. Mankiw emphasized that Mr. Bush has yet to decide on a specificproposal for fixing Social Security, except that it would have toinclude personal accounts and that it would not include raisingtaxes. But the issue he highlighted is at the center of a majordebate within the administration and among Congressional Republicans.Policy analysts say changing the way benefits are calculated couldsave trillions of dollars in decades to come. But it would implysignificant reductions from the benefits promised under today's laws.The idea behind personal accounts is that workers, by makinginvestments in stocks and bonds, could more than make up thedifference with extra earnings.In what seemed an effort to anticipate complaints that a new systemwould reduce future benefits, Mr. Mankiw warned that the benefitspromised under current law are fictitious because they cannot beafforded."Be wary of comparisons between a new, reformed Social Securitysystem and current law," Mr. Mankiw said. "Unless a listener isdiscerning, empty promises will always have a superficial appeal."Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush had notdecided on a specific plan and refused to comment on any need forreductions in future benefits."The president is committed to strengthening Social Security foryounger workers so they don't face the massive tax increases orbenefit reductions that are certain with inaction," Ms. Buchan said.The specific issue that Mr. Mankiw highlighted on Thursday, thoughseemingly obscure, involves the level at which a person's initialbenefit is set at the time he or she retires. Under the currentformula, which was established by Congress in 1978, the annualbenefit is pegged to increases in average wages while the person wasworking.The idea was to keep retirement incomes in line with overall wagesfrom generation to generation, and analysts said the formula was farmore generous than simply pegging benefits to inflation.Kent Smetters, a former Treasury official under President Bush who isnow an associate professor at the Wharton School of Business, saidlinking benefits to inflation would in itself save trillions ofdollars. But Professor Smetters said the idea was not as tame as itsounded. Although retirement incomes would not be eroded byinflation, the guaranteed benefits of retired people would be lower,and lower than average incomes, as time went on."Source:http://nytimes.com/2004/12/03/politics/03social.html=====================================================================My links:http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/wisdomforcourtshttp://www.wisdomstore.uswisepeople

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://vanokat.wholefoodfarmacy.com/

LOVE PEOPLE AND USE THINGS -

NOT LOVE THINGS AND USE PEOPLE.Have nothing to do with the evil deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. Ephesians 5:11

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Eph. 6:12).

----

 

 

Deborah G. Reid

12/08/04 00:51:32

govtwatch4

[govtwatch4] Bush Aide Warns Social Security Will Be Reduced

From the news I've learned that Bush is planning to have soldiers inIraq for the next 10 years. That plus the rebuilding of Iraq will beexpensive. Those expenses may be the excuse Bush uses to startreducing social security benefits in the near future.Most retired Americans and disabled Americans only source of incomeis from Social Security. Most Americans that receive Social Securityhave paid into the fund when they worked in public employment. As towomen that didn't work outside of the home, but were dependenthousewives, their husbands worked in public employment and paid intothe fund. Dependent housewives, except for the ones that can affordmaids, have been working doing chores around the home all of theiradult lives.As to Americans that are on Social Security due to disability adoctor has determined that those people have either physicalillnesses, mental illnesses, or both. Many people have suchillnesses, not to due their own faults, but due to the faults of thegreedy evil people that have been running the society for a longtime. Farming methods changing from natural methods to unnaturalmethods - herbicides, pesticides - causes a depletion of nutrientsand puts arsenic on our food. That makes people ill. Due to that manypeople have become ill and died. They were robbed of their very livesdue to that change in farming allowed by the government. What a dirtytrick.Then when people get sick as a result of unnatural farming methods,their doctors put them on prescription drugs. Many more people havedied from the side effects or overdosages of prescription drugs thanhave ever died from nutritional supplements. Now the pharmaceuticalcompanies have convinced the U.S. Congress to sign an internationaltreaty that will cause Americans' loss of freedom regarding vitamins,minerals, herbs, and other natural supplements. Many Americans havebeen studying up on such natural remedies, buying, and using them totreat their illnesses. Some people have saved their very lives usingsuch products.Unless the treaty about this matter is overturned before next Julywhen it is due to be ratified, not only the Americans who need theproducts for their health, but the businesses that manufacture suchproducts and their employees will be wronged and harmed. People willlose their source of employment. People will get sicker and die fromlack of supplements. What a dirty trick.Taking into consideration the information related above plus the factthat illegal immigrants receive mega-billions of tax dollars worth ofgovernment assistance each year, it should be guaranteed that legalAmericans' Social Security checks will not be reduced. MostAmericans' Social Security checks are too low to cover the costs ofsurvival needs. I read a news article that related that Gulf Warveterans receive $2300 a month from Social Security. However, formost Americans that have worked the hard work low pay type jobs theirSocial Security checks are about $500-$1000 a month, which isn'tenough to stay alive on. Churches don't make up the difference. Sooften churches are more concerned with building new auditoriums oreven new churches. Most often food banks have only non-perishablefoods such as canned foods-oversalted and metal contaminated. What adirty trick.Sincerely,Deborah ReidP.S.: The solution to Social Security funds running low in 33-43years is to go ahead and make a change in higher income people'sSocial Security withholding. I've read that currently income over$89,000 is exempt from Social Security withholding. That needs to bechanged so that all of the earnings, even those over $89,000, havewithholding. Thus doing away with the cap.====================================================================="WASHINGTON - Calling the current system of Social Security benefitsunsustainable, a top economic adviser to President Bush on Thursdaystrongly implied that any overhaul of the system would have toinclude major cuts in guaranteed benefits for future retirees."Let me state clearly that there are no free lunches here," said N.Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, at aconference on tax policy here."The benefits now scheduled for future generations under current laware not sustainable given the projected path of payroll tax revenue,"he added. "They are empty promises."Mr. Mankiw's remarks suggested that President Bush's plan to letpeople put some of their Social Security taxes into "personal savingsaccounts" would have to be accompanied by changes in the currentsystem of benefits.Throughout the presidential campaign and in remarks after he was re-elected, Mr. Bush focused almost exclusively on these accounts as acrucial way to shore up Social Security. Most experts have said thatthe accounts must be accompanied by other belt-tightening measures.When asked about cuts in future benefits, Mr. Bush, however, has saidonly that any overhaul should make no changes in the benefits forpeople in retirement or near retirement. The president has said thatoverhauling the Social Security system would involve "costs," but sofar he has not indicated what those might be.In his speech, Mr. Mankiw flatly rejected raising taxes as a means ofsaving the federal retirement system, which government actuaries sayis on track to become insolvent by 2042 if no changes are made to thecurrent law. Instead, he took particular aim at a specific feature ofcurrent law under which retirement benefits are linked to the rise inwages rather than the rise in consumer prices."Each generation of retirees receives higher real benefits than thegeneration before it," Mr. Mankiw said. Because wages typically climbfaster than inflation, he said, an average worker retiring in 2050would get benefits that are 40 percent higher, after inflation, thana comparable worker who retires this year.Mr. Mankiw emphasized that Mr. Bush has yet to decide on a specificproposal for fixing Social Security, except that it would have toinclude personal accounts and that it would not include raisingtaxes. But the issue he highlighted is at the center of a majordebate within the administration and among Congressional Republicans.Policy analysts say changing the way benefits are calculated couldsave trillions of dollars in decades to come. But it would implysignificant reductions from the benefits promised under today's laws.The idea behind personal accounts is that workers, by makinginvestments in stocks and bonds, could more than make up thedifference with extra earnings.In what seemed an effort to anticipate complaints that a new systemwould reduce future benefits, Mr. Mankiw warned that the benefitspromised under current law are fictitious because they cannot beafforded."Be wary of comparisons between a new, reformed Social Securitysystem and current law," Mr. Mankiw said. "Unless a listener isdiscerning, empty promises will always have a superficial appeal."Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush had notdecided on a specific plan and refused to comment on any need forreductions in future benefits."The president is committed to strengthening Social Security foryounger workers so they don't face the massive tax increases orbenefit reductions that are certain with inaction," Ms. Buchan said.The specific issue that Mr. Mankiw highlighted on Thursday, thoughseemingly obscure, involves the level at which a person's initialbenefit is set at the time he or she retires. Under the currentformula, which was established by Congress in 1978, the annualbenefit is pegged to increases in average wages while the person wasworking.The idea was to keep retirement incomes in line with overall wagesfrom generation to generation, and analysts said the formula was farmore generous than simply pegging benefits to inflation.Kent Smetters, a former Treasury official under President Bush who isnow an associate professor at the Wharton School of Business, saidlinking benefits to inflation would in itself save trillions ofdollars. But Professor Smetters said the idea was not as tame as itsounded. Although retirement incomes would not be eroded byinflation, the guaranteed benefits of retired people would be lower,and lower than average incomes, as time went on."Source:http://nytimes.com/2004/12/03/politics/03social.html=====================================================================My links:http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/wisdomforcourtshttp://www.wisdomstore.uswisepeople