Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts

  1. You didn't plan on actually retiring now did you?
    Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts
    Feb 25, 10:26 PM (ET)

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, stepping into the politically charged debate over Social Security, said Wednesday the country can't afford the retirement benefits promised to baby boomers and urged Congress to trim them.

    He said that unless Congress acts, soaring budget deficits from out-of-control entitlement programs could lead to a "very debilitating" rise in interest rates in coming years.

    Democratic presidential candidates denounced his proposals, and President Bush and other Republicans sought to distance themselves from the Republican Greenspan.

    Full aritcle -
  2. Visit WyomingRN profile page

    About WyomingRN

    Joined: Oct '03; Posts: 415; Likes: 18


  3. by   fergus51
    Well, we have to sacrifice for those tax cuts somewhere, and who better to do it than the old people?
  4. by   MEL101
    :hatparty: My g#d, thats me!!! Hope November gets here sooner than soon!!!
  5. by   warrior woman
    I am soooooooo screwed.
  6. by   jnette
    This really turns my stomach. Guess he doesn't have to worry about it, though. Nor do all those $$$$ CEOs... AT&T just laid off thousands.. something like 8% of their workforce. But I'd say its CEO is a fat cat.

    Not only are all our jobs leaving this country in quest of the almighty buck.. now THIS ??? Also mentioned was doing away with cost of living wage increases. And all the while gas prices keep climbing.. won't be surprised to see it up to $3.00/gal. by summer..(of COURSE.. vacation time, right? How conveniently coincidental!)

    Was this war truly worth all this? Heck, we needn't have worried about the illusive WMDs... this country may well self destruct from within before long. Perhaps that was Saddam's plan from the get-go.... lure us into this war and ruin our nation finacially while building up his.Take what little health care WE have, and give it to them.
    Bet those terrorists are laughing their butts off at us.

    Then again, if things get any worse..and they CAN... it wouldn't be too farfetched to see us rise up and have mass rebellion/chaos/anarchy... even civil war within our own country. People will only take so much.

    Question: what happens to all the $$ taken out of our checks for the past 30+ years paid into Social Security ? How fair is that? That's like taking away someone's personal savings account. :stone
  7. by   WyomingRN
    Actually, I am totally against social anything. Socialism is anti-liberty; anti-property; anti-Constitution; and anti-American. Having a little socialism is like having a little slavery in the south. Any taxing program that takes from one person and gives it to another (especially a profit making corporation) is nothing more than theft according to Supreme Court statements. (See my previous post). It amounts to nothing more than what I call, "modern slavery" as viewed from the American Constitutional perspective. I am an American; I believe in liberty and I believe that a person has a right to what he has worked hard to earn. I give a lot of my time and sweat for what I can get; and what little I get should be mine - all 100 percent!! (I probably wouldn't mind as much if the money actually went to those who were less fortunate than myself; but out of every dollar the government takes "for the poor", the "poor" only receive 15-20 cents - at best.)

    With that said, if we are going to have socialism, than lets do it all the way - PERIOD! What the rich politicians want is a dual system where we live in a socialist society which they control while they live in a semi-capitalistic society funded by us little people through the transfer of money controlled by the government. To me everyone is looking at this from the wrong direction. If we are going to have an un-Constitutional system, then let's truly make it equal.

    If the politicians think that some can live off of $20,000 a year, than they should have to live off that same amount. Remember, being a politician was NOT supposed to be a full time job and those elected to office WERE NEVER supposed to be paid - especially like they are today. If we are going to have a socialist unConstitutional system anyway, it shouldn't matter what you, or Kerry or Gates or Bush makes. If the politicians think a person can live off of $20,000, than anything they make over that amount should be taxed 100%. And of course the same would apply to Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, And of course if we can do this, then we can cap the profit of a business also since anything the shareholders made over the set limit would also be 100% taxable.

    "Was this war truly worth all this?" I don't feel any of our foreign policy has been worth it to Americans. Democrats and rebublicians have cost Americans trillions; have cost us jobs; and even lives. No this war for the rich was not worth it; nor was the first; nor is NAFTA or FTAA. A criminal is someone who violates the law; and as long as we continue to put criminals into office - especially rich criminals, nothing will change.

    "it wouldn't be too farfetched to see us rise up and have mass rebellion/chaos/anarchy" - Actually, freedom from tryannical power has NEVER been obtained with force for NO government ever surrendered power voluntarily.

    For the record, this is one of the reasons I support the We The People Foundation and the ACLA

    As those of you who have read my posts know, this is why I am such a believer in true knowledge and education and why I believe Americans must return to living by principle and law rather than living by greed and the constantly changing dictates of rich men. We can have an America that is based upon liberty and justice - or we can have a world controling Emipre - but we cannot have both.
  8. by   MEL101
    Read on for those of you with children, our future generation....even tho' I'm kid free this is scary and sick behavior from our "elected" officials!! Will we ever learn...... :angryfire

    Dear MoveOn member,
    Under energy industry pressure, President Bush's EPA plans to defer controls on mercury emissions by power plants for at least a decade. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 4.9 million women of childbearing age in the U.S. -- that's 8 percent -- have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. The people hit hardest will be new-born infants -- every year over 630,000 infants are born with levels of mercury in their blood so high they can cause brain damage.
    We have just a few weeks to get public comments to the EPA on this plan to defer mercury controls. It's time to tell the EPA and the White House that our kids come first. You can submit your comment by clicking this link:
    From a public health standpoint, the EPA's new policy is a disaster. But for Bush's energy industry allies, who are responsible for most mercury pollution, it's yet another bonanza. Increased pollution levels will allow these companies to save millions, while their top managers keep writing big campaign checks to support George W. Bush -- it's a pretty sick cycle.
    On January 30th, the EPA announced its intention to weaken its own earlier proposal that would have required a 90 percent reduction in mercury pollution by power plants by 2008. The new proposal doesn't force every power plant to limit mercury pollution, leaving many communities vulnerable. It would also delay implementation of even these weaker requirements until 2018, leaving a whole new generation of kids needlessly at risk.
    The first responsibility of the Bush administration and the EPA is to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens. Time and again, we've seen the Bush administration try to weaken environmental protections, starting with its proposal to roll back stricter limits on arsenic in our drinking water. We must boost the visibility of the mercury issue so that, as with arsenic, the Bush administration is shamed into adopting a more rigorous standard.
    Please join our effort to protect our environment and our children from the debilitating effects of mercury poisoning. Your comments will bolster the efforts of MoveOn members and other concerned people who are showing up today at public hearings on this issue in Chicago, Philadelphia and Raleigh.
    Tell the Bush administration to protect children's health by reducing power plant mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2008 and ensuring that these reductions occur at each and every power plant, by clicking here:
    Thanks for all your efforts.
    --Joan and Wes
    February 25th, 2004
  9. by   manna
    .... yeah, what Wyoming said.
    Last edit by manna on Feb 26, '04
  10. by   MEL101
    :imbar Sorry WyomingRN...didn't mean to upstage you & SS message...:imbar
  11. by   ArleneG
    Quoted from GWB:
    "My position on Social Security benefits is this: those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement." However, the president specifically refused to say he opposed cutting future guaranteed benefits for younger and middle-aged workers.

    The president's refusal to discuss younger workers was a departure from his very clear position in 2000 in which he said he did not support cuts in future Social Security benefits for anyone - young or old. Less than two months before the 2000 election, then-Governor Bush said in Florida that people were saying, "'You know, if George W. becomes the president, he's going to take away your Social Security check.'" To which Bush added, "Don't believe it. Here's my pledge to the people of Florida: A promise made by our government will be a promise kept when I become the president of the United States
  12. by   ernurse2244
    I am rapidly approaching SS age and am getting very nervous. My own retirement account is rather small and I was hoping to save it for emergencies, big ticket items, etc. I've paid into the system for over 40 years and did so with faith that it would be there for me.
  13. by   manna
    I'd urge anyone to realize that your retirement is your business - don't rely on the government to be there for you. Easier said than done, I know - I'm approaching 30 and not yet a drop in my 401K.

    I'm a big Dave Ramsey fan, though - so I'm working on it!
  14. by   Spidey's mom
    Jnette . . . .it isn't like your own savings account unfortunately. The money we pay in right now goes to pay the SS benefits of people already retired and receiving SS benefits and the money we've paid in the past went for people who were receiving SS benefits at that time. It isn't in a "lock box" with our name on it. It wasn't set up that way.

    It is my understanding that it was never intended to be a true retirement plan anyway. It was intended to be a safety net for retired people. Manna is right . . get into a 401K or something else quick.

    Also, if you die at age 65, the money that you paid into the system for the last 45 years is lost to your family forever. That is another good reason to invest your money yourself and not rely on the government.

    Just an example . . .if you make $50,000 a year as a nurse, you pay 7.5% of your income and your employer pays a matching 7.5% into Social Security. You pay that from the very first dollar you make. 7.5 + 7.5 = 15%. If you work 45 years (age 20 to age 65) you will have paid $337,500 into SS - and that is without any interest. You do not get any benefit for the money you've invested. When you retire, you will receive maybe $900 a month but you will never live to see the entire amount of $337,500 . . and that is what this entire pyramid scheme is counting on. Doesn't it make just a tad more sense to invest the money yourself and make a bit of interest and get the entire amount back, plus interest????

    Everybody put your own tush on the line and be responsible for your own saving instead of letting the government get the benefit of your hard work.

    Last edit by Spidey's mom on Feb 26, '04