WN: After Bush's plea, Senate revives immigration bill - USA Today

[WorthyNewsBot]

With Democratic and Republican leaders joining ranks, the Senate Tuesday voted to resume debate on a controversial immigration bill that is one of President Bush's top domestic priorities.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/usatoday-co...igration_N-htm/

[kat8585]

Bush should have been so tenacious about Social Security reform and making the tax cuts permanent.

[Celtic Warrior]

Bush should have been so tenacious about Social Security reform and making the tax cuts permanent.

Why? Don't the Wealthy have enough already? Isn't 80% of the nations wealth in the hands of the top 10-15% enough for you? Your middle Income tax load not heavy enough? Who do you think is going to pay for this war debt we're accumulating? Not the rich if you keep giving them breaks. AND IT WILL GET PAID FOR!!! When R. Reagan took office we were the Largest Creditor nation on the planet. When he left office 8 years later we were the largest debtor nation on the planet. So much for Republican fiscal responsibility. And George is even worse.

And you really want to give them the power to manage your retirement money? Afterall, isn't that what Privatization is really all about. Individual investment accounts managed by a government appointed Investment agency? And WHO will be choosing that Agency? Not you. One major stock market crash and there goes 20 years of YOUR hard work. Don't believe me? Go ahead and trust politicians to set up and manage an equitable and trustable private investment fund for YOUR benefit. If Bush can destroy 8 years of gains in the Social Security account in one year, image what his kind could do to your lifelong account in a short time.

[kat8585]

Bush should have been so tenacious about Social Security reform and making the tax cuts permanent.

Why? Don't the Wealthy have enough already? Isn't 80% of the nations wealth in the hands of the top 10-15% enough for you? Your middle Income tax load not heavy enough? Who do you think is going to pay for this war debt we're accumulating? Not the rich if you keep giving them breaks. AND IT WILL GET PAID FOR!!! When R. Reagan took office we were the Largest Creditor nation on the planet. When he left office 8 years later we were the largest debtor nation on the planet. So much for Republican fiscal responsibility. And George is even worse.

And you really want to give them the power to manage your retirement money? Afterall, isn't that what Privatization is really all about. Individual investment accounts managed by a government appointed Investment agency? And WHO will be choosing that Agency? Not you. One major stock market crash and there goes 20 years of YOUR hard work. Don't believe me? Go ahead and trust politicians to set up and manage an equitable and trustable private investment fund for YOUR benefit. If Bush can destroy 8 years of gains in the Social Security account in one year, image what his kind could do to your lifelong account in a short time.

Aren't politicians managing Social Security now? And what is happening to it?

By the way, Remember Galveston, Tx?

What makes you think only the wealthy benefitted from the tax cuts? I benefitted from them, and I'd like to continue to.

How would making the tax cuts permanent make my tax load heavier?

[Celtic Warrior]

Bush should have been so tenacious about Social Security reform and making the tax cuts permanent.

Why? Don't the Wealthy have enough already? Isn't 80% of the nations wealth in the hands of the top 10-15% enough for you? Your middle Income tax load not heavy enough? Who do you think is going to pay for this war debt we're accumulating? Not the rich if you keep giving them breaks. AND IT WILL GET PAID FOR!!! When R. Reagan took office we were the Largest Creditor nation on the planet. When he left office 8 years later we were the largest debtor nation on the planet. So much for Republican fiscal responsibility. And George is even worse.

And you really want to give them the power to manage your retirement money? Afterall, isn't that what Privatization is really all about. Individual investment accounts managed by a government appointed Investment agency? And WHO will be choosing that Agency? Not you. One major stock market crash and there goes 20 years of YOUR hard work. Don't believe me? Go ahead and trust politicians to set up and manage an equitable and trustable private investment fund for YOUR benefit. If Bush can destroy 8 years of gains in the Social Security account in one year, image what his kind could do to your lifelong account in a short time.

Aren't politicians managing Social Security now? And what is happening to it?

By the way, Remember Galveston, Tx?

What makes you think only the wealthy benefitted from the tax cuts? I benefitted from them, and I'd like to continue to.

How would making the tax cuts permanent make my tax load heavier?

No, not in an individual account way. The money is invested as a whole unit and YOUR final payouts are not based on whatever your private account may (or may NOT) do. Your monthly payment is now based on best years of service (a defined benefit plan, guaranteeing a set monthly payment), not an account that can go away if a bad investment is made or the economy takes a nose dive at the wrong time. I am the 'proud' owner of a "annuity based account" that was hit hard by the Stock market problems of the early Bush years, and you can take it as fact that I (and many others) were hurt hard by them. I (and a lot of others) don't have enough time left before retirement to recover what the 1st year of setbacks alone cost. That doesn't even take into account 3 years of contributions and the poor performance of the stock market after that first setback. It's a pipe dream that sounds good on paper, and looks good on the surface, but it doesn't take much for the whole thing to collapse at the wrong moment and leave you much worse than you would be if you leave things as they are. Besides, the current system can be fixed easy enough if the Republicans weren't so afraid of putting the tax back on those they've exempted. If you want to talk private accounts ON TOP of a guaranteed monthly payment, I could get behind that, but Privatization as Bush pushed for? NOT A CHANCE!!!

And letting politicians decide who gets the "privilege' of managing your individual investment account is like turning the candy store over to the fat kid with a sweet tooth.

Not ALL the tax cuts benefitted the Rich ONLY, but the ones that Bush wants to make permanent ARE the ones that benefit the Rich only. The Democrats support making permanent the ones the benefit the middle class. AND, they will make YOUR load heavier because someone has to pay the debt we are now accumulating, and there WILL be a tax increase in the foreseeable future, regardless of which party wins Congress and the Presidency. The debt MUST be paid or we must default, which is an even worse scenario for working class people

[kat8585]

Bush should have been so tenacious about Social Security reform and making the tax cuts permanent.

Why? Don't the Wealthy have enough already? Isn't 80% of the nations wealth in the hands of the top 10-15% enough for you? Your middle Income tax load not heavy enough? Who do you think is going to pay for this war debt we're accumulating? Not the rich if you keep giving them breaks. AND IT WILL GET PAID FOR!!! When R. Reagan took office we were the Largest Creditor nation on the planet. When he left office 8 years later we were the largest debtor nation on the planet. So much for Republican fiscal responsibility. And George is even worse.

And you really want to give them the power to manage your retirement money? Afterall, isn't that what Privatization is really all about. Individual investment accounts managed by a government appointed Investment agency? And WHO will be choosing that Agency? Not you. One major stock market crash and there goes 20 years of YOUR hard work. Don't believe me? Go ahead and trust politicians to set up and manage an equitable and trustable private investment fund for YOUR benefit. If Bush can destroy 8 years of gains in the Social Security account in one year, image what his kind could do to your lifelong account in a short time.

Aren't politicians managing Social Security now? And what is happening to it?

By the way, Remember Galveston, Tx?

What makes you think only the wealthy benefitted from the tax cuts? I benefitted from them, and I'd like to continue to.

How would making the tax cuts permanent make my tax load heavier?

Yeah, and screwing it up by dipping into it. And it doesn't seem to be doing as well as you might think it should. So what makes you think letting the government pawn it off to another FOR PROFIT corporation will yield better results?

I don't remember much since I was young and pretty hammered back then. how about a reminder?

Either you make a lot of money or you don't have as much of a tax break as you think.

I know it's not doing good. That's why we need Bush's reform. You can do a search, but here are a couple of articles on Galveston.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/04/g...ston_texas.html

No, I certainly don't make a lot of money, so I'm thankful for the tax cut I got, and I would like to keep it.

[kat8585]

Not ALL the tax cuts benefitted the Rich ONLY, but the ones that Bush wants to make permanent ARE the ones that benefit the Rich only. The Democrats support making permanent the ones the benefit the middle class. AND, they will make YOUR load heavier because someone has to pay the debt we are now accumulating, and there WILL be a tax increase in the foreseeable future, regardless of which party wins Congress and the Presidency. The debt MUST be paid or we must default, which is an even worse scenario for working class people

Bush wants to make all the tax cuts permanent. The Dems want to raise everyone's taxes. That's always the first thing Dems want to do.

Of course, they always want to make it sound like they are trying to help the middle class, in order to get elected.

[forrestkc]

Aren't politicians managing Social Security now? And what is happening to it?

By the way, Remember Galveston, Tx?

What makes you think only the wealthy benefitted from the tax cuts? I benefitted from them, and I'd like to continue to.

How would making the tax cuts permanent make my tax load heavier?

Yes, but you will benefit a lot more from Social Security here in a few years when you retire, and you will certainly benefit a great deal from Medicare when you retire. That is unless you want it all privatized. What do think your Medical Insurance rate from a private insurer would be for adequate coverage once you are in your 70s? I would say that if you are in great health, you might find a private insurer to cover you absent Medicare for about 1,500 a month. Any medical issues at all it would be much more, and of course the older you got, the higher it would be.

You are not going to have to worry about that. You see, when you retire you are going to have Medicare Coverage for a reasonable monthly rate until the day you die. No matter how old you live to be you will also be guaranteed to get Social Security until the day you die. For that, you can thank a liberal.

[Celtic Warrior]

I know it's not doing good. That's why we need Bush's reform. You can do a search, but here are a couple of articles on Galveston.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/04/g...ston_texas.html

No, I certainly don't make a lot of money, so I'm thankful for the tax cut I got, and I would like to keep it.

Oh I agree it needs reform, but not BUSH's reform.

It needs people removed out that don't belong in it, like the Forestry Service, people disabled with Arhtritis, or too fat to sit down to do a job, and the hundreds of others who are being paid that never contributed. It was supposed to be a retirement/disability system for people WHO WORKED, and it needs to just be put back to that. There also needs to be laws passed that Prohibit ANY use of the funds except for Retirement/Disability Pension of those who have worked to contribute to it.

Both parties have tampered with it or dipped into it before you point to one side or the other too. NO politician can stand to see a system with money sitting in it. They simply cannot resist getting their hands on it. That's what happened with the WORKING SS system we currently have. It was making way too much money and politicians just couldn't let it sit there and work for us. They had to give it to illegals, to people without true disabilities, to fund projects they didn't want to raise taxes to support, like the US Forest Service (and I support the Forest Service, but they need their OWN fund paid out of taxes gathered for them, not our SS funds).

The Republicans have been opposed to SS since Roosevelt inaugarated it, and have done everything they could to undermine it, and Privatization is just one more attempt to do that very thing. Imagine getting to age 65 and finding out that the "recent economic downturn" has just wiped out ALL your SS account. After years and years of service you really would have nothing. But if you really think that ANY politician wants to be THE POLITICIAN who ruined SS you don't understand politicians. The System will be there, and paying, well after your time to need it. None will take the responsibility of actually letting it default or run out of money. Though they will try to get control of it to their benefit, or find some way to get popular opinion behind dismantling it altogether, thereby taking the focus off of them (Like Bush just tried to do)

[forrestkc]

A lot of economists are saying that all that needs to be done to fix Social Security is that instead of taking current surpluses and exchanging them for T-Bills, they should be taking a portion of current surpluses and investing it in prime rate mortgages. The difference in the rate of the return would be more than enough to keep Social Security solvent for the next century.

Of course, the problem for Republicans is that their tax cuts, you know the ones that were supposed to pay for themselves, well they really did not do that. In fact, its been surpluses in Social Security and Medicare that has been largely masking the tax cuts affects on budget deficits. If we quit exchanging current Social Security surpluses for T-Bills and invested it into prime mortgages instead, the deficit would go through the roof and income taxes would have to be raised.