Emperor Bush the Thieving BASTARD and his Organized Crime Buddies, did you SHEEPPLE think I was kidding THE GREAT TEXAS BANK JOB is a VERY REAL ACCOUNT of the FACT that Abranoff is a SNIFFLE not the main CANCER. These assholes are MAJOR thieves
WAKE UP it's called CONSPIRACY GRASSHOPPERS
Not Slight Of Hand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bush Slips Social Security Privatization into 2007 US Budget !!!!
Subject: Sleight of Hand... Shrub attempts again to pull a fast one on
Congress and the American People
Here's one uncovered by Allan Sloan at Newsweek... after Shrub's
proposed turning of the Social Security safety net into a Wall Street
crapshoot (which went over like a lead balloon, and for good reasons),
Shrub snuck it into his 2400+ page budget proposal anyhow...
squandering an apparently 'spare' 715 BILLION dollars on a miserable and
unwanted program when we're already trillions of dollars in hock to
Communist China... and apparently hoping that nobody would notice until
it was a 'done deal" (just as so often happens with huge omnibus bills
sent to Congress).
[quote]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11235990/site/newsweek/
Sleight of Hand
Bush buried detailed Social Security privatization proposals in his
budget. Can the surprise move jump-start bipartisan reform?
By Allan Sloan
Updated: 12:09 p.m. ET Feb. 8, 2006
Feb. 8, 2006 - If you read enough numbers, you never know what you'll
find. Take President Bush and private Social Security accounts.
Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys
of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and
never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no
fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan
in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.
His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010
and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues
to pay for them over the first seven years.
If this comes as a surprise to you, have no fear. You're not alone.
Bush didn't pitch private Social Security accounts in his State of the
Union Message last week.
First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying
that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social
Security," even though, as I said, he'd never submitted specific
legislation.
Then he seemed to be kicking the Social Security problem a few years
down the road in typical Washington fashion when he asked Congress "to
join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby-boom
retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," adding that the
commission would be bipartisan "and offer bipartisan solutions."
But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to
deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own
privatization proposals into his proposed budget.
"The Democrats were laughing all the way to the funeral of Social
Security modernization," White House spokesman Trent Duffy told me in an
interview Tuesday, but "the president still cares deeply about this."
Duffy asserted that Bush would have been remiss not to
include in the budget the cost of something that he feels so strongly
about, and he seemed surprised at my surprise that Social Security
privatization had been written into the budget without any advance
fanfare.
Duffy said privatization costs were included in the midyear budget
update that the Office of Management and Budget released last July 30,
so it was logical for them to be in the 2007 budget proposals. But I
sure didn't see this comingand I wonder how many people outside of
the White House did.
Nevertheless, it's here. Unlike Bush's generalized privatization talk
of last year, we're now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the
budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in
fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion
for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144
billion.
In the first year of private accounts, people would be allowed to
divert up to 4 percent of their wages covered by Social Security into
what Bush called "voluntary private accounts." The maximum contribution
to such accounts would start at $1,100 annually and rise by $100 a year
through 2016.
It's not clear how big a reduction in the basic benefit Social
Security recipients would have to take in return for being able to set
up these accounts, or precisely how the accounts would work.
Bush also wants to change the way Social Security benefits are
calculated for most people by adopting so-called progressive indexing.
Lower-income people would continue to have their Social Security
benefits tied to wages, but the benefits paid to higher-paid people
would be tied to inflation.
Wages have typically risen 1.1 percent a year more than inflation,
so over time, that disparity would give lower-paid and higher-paid
people essentially the same benefit. However, higher-paid workers would
be paying substantially more into the system than lower-paid people
would.
This means that although progressive indexing is an attractive idea
from a social-justice point of view, it would reduce Social Security's
political support by making it seem more like welfare than an earned
benefit.
Bush is right, of course, when he says in his budget proposal that
Social Security in its current form is unsustainable. But there are
plenty of ways to fix it besides offering private accounts as a
substitute for part of the basic benefit.
Bush's 2001 Social Security commission had members of both parties, but
they had to agree in advance to support private accounts. Their report,
which had some interesting ideas, went essentially nowhere.
What remains to be seen is whether this time around Bush follows
through on forming a bipartisan commission and whether he can get
credible Democrats to join it. Dropping numbers onto your opponents is a
great way to stick your finger in their eye. But will it get the Social
Security job done? That, my friends, is a whole other story.
Sloan is NEWSWEEK's Wall Street editor. His e-mail is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[end quote]
Gordon Peterson
http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year
of Local Area Networking! Support free and fair US elections!
http://stickers.defend-democracy.org 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans
scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the
Republican Party took down democracy in America.
______________________________________________
Jim Rarey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
![The New York Times]()
U.S. Cites Rise in Violence Along Border With Mexico
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
OM
SPONSORED LINKS
| United state bankruptcy court western district of texas | United state life insurance | United state patent |
| United state patent search | United states patent office | United state flag |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
