OT: Bush's Retirement Plan Written By A Top Democrat, Who Now Urges Retreat

Bet you didn't know that Bush's plan came from the mind of a Democrat:

WASHINGTON, May 19 - Robert C. Pozen, the business executive who
developed the theory behind President Bush's plan to trim Social
Security benefits in the future, urged the president on Thursday to
drop his insistence on using part of workers' taxes to pay for
individual investment accounts.

This was one of two blows during the day to Mr. Bush's policies on
Social Security and retirement saving.

In the House, Representative Bill Thomas, chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, disregarded the methods favored by the president to
encourage workers to save for retirement - mostly tax incentives for
the affluent - and offered completely different proposals of his own.

The president's Social Security and retirement measures have faced
trouble in Congress all year, and the developments on Thursday raised
further doubt about their prospects.

On the question of Mr. Pozen's new position, Trent Duffy, a White House
spokesman, said, "The president is committed to a voluntary personal
account as part of a comprehensive Social Security modernization plan."

On Mr. Thomas's stance on retirement saving, Mr. Duffy said Mr. Bush
"understands and welcomes the chairman's ideas."

Mr. Pozen, a member of Mr. Bush's advisory commission on Social
Security in 2001, said at a forum at the Treasury Department that the
president's approach to investment accounts would destroy the chances
for a Social Security bill in Congress and would make it more difficult
to resolve the long-term financial problems facing the system.

He developed the technique known as progressive indexing, which Mr.
Bush embraced last month as a way to reduce the long-term cost of
Social Security and get closer to the goal of permanent solvency for
the system.

Under the technique, the promised retirement benefits of workers
earning less than about $20,000 a year would be fully protected, but
other workers' promised benefits would be cut on a sliding scale as
income increased. In all cases, benefits would at least keep pace with
inflation.

Unlike Democratic lawmakers who oppose as a matter of principle
including investment accounts as part of Social Security, Mr. Pozen,
himself a Democrat, says that some form of accounts could be useful.

But, explaining his position in an interview after the forum at the
Treasury, he said the president's plan to let workers divert up almost
a third of their payroll taxes to accounts would reduce tax revenues
and lower guaranteed retirement benefits too much.

"The accounts are just too large," Mr. Pozen said. He suggested that
Mr. Bush consider a surcharge on payroll taxes for people who earn more
than $90,000 a year, currently the ceiling on which Social Security
taxes are paid, and the possibility of using some of that added revenue
for private investment accounts.

"I believe some new revenue in the system is probably necessary for a
legislative solution," Mr. Pozen said at the forum, called to generate
enthusiasm for the administration's approach to Social Security.

At the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas, Republican of California,
turned attention away from Social Security for the day and toward
retirement savings.

He offered several ideas that seemed to have bipartisan support, but
Democrats were wary, suspecting that he was throwing up a smokescreen
so he could later put private investment accounts into the legislation.

"We cannot be party to anything" that might lead to private accounts
under Social Security, said Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of
Massachusetts.

But Mr. Thomas, who has never maintained that personal accounts were an
integral part of Social Security legislation, said he had no ulterior
motive. "The chair has no interest in playing gotcha," he said.

He argued that it made no sense to consider changes in Social Security
without addressing the array of policies affecting retirement.

In a hearing on what the government could do to encourage people to
save for retirement, neither he nor the other Republicans on the
committee dealt with the president's proposals to let upper-income
taxpayers put more money in retirement accounts, like 401(k) plans and
individual retirement accounts, in which the earnings would not be
taxed.

Mr. Thomas offered two general ideas that seemed to have bipartisan
support.

One would require employers that offered their workers 401(k) plans to
enroll the workers automatically unless the workers specifically opted
out.

The other would encourage new forms of annuities that would be
attractive investments for low-income workers.

[New York Times, May 20, 2005]



Richard
-------
[url]www.xdnc.com[/url]
Democrats -- Working Hard For America's Families

On 23 May 2005 12:56:22 -0700, "Learning Richard"
<learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>[New York Times, May 20, 2005][/color]

That's all I need to know...


--

Scott in Florida

At last!! The President from day one has been telling the people
that SS is going broke and the SS trusties are the ones telling
him it is going broke. SOMETHING must be done and the President
said he is willing to listen to ALL proposals to protect future
recipients. The issue is before the Congress, who after all is
said and down has the final say on what is done, not the
President. It is about time democrat admit there is a problem
and step up to the plate to help find a solution. Sticking their
heads in the sand and denying anything is wrong is stupid on the
part of the democrats. What lies at the bottom of their
stubbornness is they do not want a republican to be the one to
make SS financially sound. Privet accounts is one of the best
long term solutions however. Other countries, like France, set
their social program up with private accounts for that reason as
have several others. Raising the income level on which SS it
taxed is only a temporary solution. While it will raise more
money now it will also raise the amount of pay outs over the long
run by paying even higher payment to those over 90K down the
road.


mike hunt



Learning little Richard wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Bet you didn't know that Bush's plan came from the mind of a Democrat:
>
> WASHINGTON, May 19 - Robert C. Pozen, the business executive who
> developed the theory behind President Bush's plan to trim Social
> Security benefits in the future, urged the president on Thursday to
> drop his insistence on using part of workers' taxes to pay for
> individual investment accounts.
>
> This was one of two blows during the day to Mr. Bush's policies on
> Social Security and retirement saving.
>
> In the House, Representative Bill Thomas, chairman of the Ways and
> Means Committee, disregarded the methods favored by the president to
> encourage workers to save for retirement - mostly tax incentives for
> the affluent - and offered completely different proposals of his own.
>
> The president's Social Security and retirement measures have faced
> trouble in Congress all year, and the developments on Thursday raised
> further doubt about their prospects.
>
> On the question of Mr. Pozen's new position, Trent Duffy, a White House
> spokesman, said, "The president is committed to a voluntary personal
> account as part of a comprehensive Social Security modernization plan."
>
> On Mr. Thomas's stance on retirement saving, Mr. Duffy said Mr. Bush
> "understands and welcomes the chairman's ideas."
>
> Mr. Pozen, a member of Mr. Bush's advisory commission on Social
> Security in 2001, said at a forum at the Treasury Department that the
> president's approach to investment accounts would destroy the chances
> for a Social Security bill in Congress and would make it more difficult
> to resolve the long-term financial problems facing the system.
>
> He developed the technique known as progressive indexing, which Mr.
> Bush embraced last month as a way to reduce the long-term cost of
> Social Security and get closer to the goal of permanent solvency for
> the system.
>
> Under the technique, the promised retirement benefits of workers
> earning less than about $20,000 a year would be fully protected, but
> other workers' promised benefits would be cut on a sliding scale as
> income increased. In all cases, benefits would at least keep pace with
> inflation.
>
> Unlike Democratic lawmakers who oppose as a matter of principle
> including investment accounts as part of Social Security, Mr. Pozen,
> himself a Democrat, says that some form of accounts could be useful.
>
> But, explaining his position in an interview after the forum at the
> Treasury, he said the president's plan to let workers divert up almost
> a third of their payroll taxes to accounts would reduce tax revenues
> and lower guaranteed retirement benefits too much.
>
> "The accounts are just too large," Mr. Pozen said. He suggested that
> Mr. Bush consider a surcharge on payroll taxes for people who earn more
> than $90,000 a year, currently the ceiling on which Social Security
> taxes are paid, and the possibility of using some of that added revenue
> for private investment accounts.
>
> "I believe some new revenue in the system is probably necessary for a
> legislative solution," Mr. Pozen said at the forum, called to generate
> enthusiasm for the administration's approach to Social Security.
>
> At the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas, Republican of California,
> turned attention away from Social Security for the day and toward
> retirement savings.
>
> He offered several ideas that seemed to have bipartisan support, but
> Democrats were wary, suspecting that he was throwing up a smokescreen
> so he could later put private investment accounts into the legislation.
>
> "We cannot be party to anything" that might lead to private accounts
> under Social Security, said Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of
> Massachusetts.
>
> But Mr. Thomas, who has never maintained that personal accounts were an
> integral part of Social Security legislation, said he had no ulterior
> motive. "The chair has no interest in playing gotcha," he said.
>
> He argued that it made no sense to consider changes in Social Security
> without addressing the array of policies affecting retirement.
>
> In a hearing on what the government could do to encourage people to
> save for retirement, neither he nor the other Republicans on the
> committee dealt with the president's proposals to let upper-income
> taxpayers put more money in retirement accounts, like 401(k) plans and
> individual retirement accounts, in which the earnings would not be
> taxed.
>
> Mr. Thomas offered two general ideas that seemed to have bipartisan
> support.
>
> One would require employers that offered their workers 401(k) plans to
> enroll the workers automatically unless the workers specifically opted
> out.
>
> The other would encourage new forms of annuities that would be
> attractive investments for low-income workers.
>
> [New York Times, May 20, 2005]
>
> Richard
> -------
> [url]www.xdnc.com[/url]
> Democrats -- Working Hard For America's Families[/color]

"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
news:k4e4919svm8u2rkivr9809a9h7gmltrlus@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On 23 May 2005 12:56:22 -0700, "Learning Richard"
> <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >[New York Times, May 20, 2005][/color]
>
> That's all I need to know...[/color]

Ironically it's about all you know.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:52:52 -0400, "Josh"
<nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
>news:k4e4919svm8u2rkivr9809a9h7gmltrlus@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On 23 May 2005 12:56:22 -0700, "Learning Richard"
>> <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >[New York Times, May 20, 2005][/color]
>>
>> That's all I need to know...[/color]
>
>Ironically it's about all you know.
>[/color]
awww Joshie.... You poor poor little thang...

Got ur panties in an uproar again?

ROFL


--

Scott in Florida

In article <5as4915roirfnir9t6gcfh614bp79vudd2@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:52:52 -0400, "Josh"
> <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
> >news:k4e4919svm8u2rkivr9809a9h7gmltrlus@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
> >> On 23 May 2005 12:56:22 -0700, "Learning Richard"
> >> <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >[New York Times, May 20, 2005]
> >>
> >> That's all I need to know...[/color]
> >
> >Ironically it's about all you know.
> >[/color]
> awww Joshie.... You poor poor little thang...
>
> Got ur panties in an uproar again?
>
> ROFL[/color]

Has that josey got antything new for usins? Poor feller.....LOL
--

And what that has to do with Toyota newsgroup?

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116878182.571256.114830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> Bet you didn't know that Bush's plan came from the mind of a Democrat:
>
> WASHINGTON, May 19 - Robert C. Pozen, the business executive who
> developed the theory behind President Bush's plan to trim Social
> Security benefits in the future, urged the president on Thursday to
> drop his insistence on using part of workers' taxes to pay for
> individual investment accounts.
>
> This was one of two blows during the day to Mr. Bush's policies on
> Social Security and retirement saving.
>
> In the House, Representative Bill Thomas, chairman of the Ways and
> Means Committee, disregarded the methods favored by the president to
> encourage workers to save for retirement - mostly tax incentives for
> the affluent - and offered completely different proposals of his own.
>
> The president's Social Security and retirement measures have faced
> trouble in Congress all year, and the developments on Thursday raised
> further doubt about their prospects.
>
> On the question of Mr. Pozen's new position, Trent Duffy, a White House
> spokesman, said, "The president is committed to a voluntary personal
> account as part of a comprehensive Social Security modernization plan."
>
> On Mr. Thomas's stance on retirement saving, Mr. Duffy said Mr. Bush
> "understands and welcomes the chairman's ideas."
>
> Mr. Pozen, a member of Mr. Bush's advisory commission on Social
> Security in 2001, said at a forum at the Treasury Department that the
> president's approach to investment accounts would destroy the chances
> for a Social Security bill in Congress and would make it more difficult
> to resolve the long-term financial problems facing the system.
>
> He developed the technique known as progressive indexing, which Mr.
> Bush embraced last month as a way to reduce the long-term cost of
> Social Security and get closer to the goal of permanent solvency for
> the system.
>
> Under the technique, the promised retirement benefits of workers
> earning less than about $20,000 a year would be fully protected, but
> other workers' promised benefits would be cut on a sliding scale as
> income increased. In all cases, benefits would at least keep pace with
> inflation.
>
> Unlike Democratic lawmakers who oppose as a matter of principle
> including investment accounts as part of Social Security, Mr. Pozen,
> himself a Democrat, says that some form of accounts could be useful.
>
> But, explaining his position in an interview after the forum at the
> Treasury, he said the president's plan to let workers divert up almost
> a third of their payroll taxes to accounts would reduce tax revenues
> and lower guaranteed retirement benefits too much.
>
> "The accounts are just too large," Mr. Pozen said. He suggested that
> Mr. Bush consider a surcharge on payroll taxes for people who earn more
> than $90,000 a year, currently the ceiling on which Social Security
> taxes are paid, and the possibility of using some of that added revenue
> for private investment accounts.
>
> "I believe some new revenue in the system is probably necessary for a
> legislative solution," Mr. Pozen said at the forum, called to generate
> enthusiasm for the administration's approach to Social Security.
>
> At the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas, Republican of California,
> turned attention away from Social Security for the day and toward
> retirement savings.
>
> He offered several ideas that seemed to have bipartisan support, but
> Democrats were wary, suspecting that he was throwing up a smokescreen
> so he could later put private investment accounts into the legislation.
>
> "We cannot be party to anything" that might lead to private accounts
> under Social Security, said Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of
> Massachusetts.
>
> But Mr. Thomas, who has never maintained that personal accounts were an
> integral part of Social Security legislation, said he had no ulterior
> motive. "The chair has no interest in playing gotcha," he said.
>
> He argued that it made no sense to consider changes in Social Security
> without addressing the array of policies affecting retirement.
>
> In a hearing on what the government could do to encourage people to
> save for retirement, neither he nor the other Republicans on the
> committee dealt with the president's proposals to let upper-income
> taxpayers put more money in retirement accounts, like 401(k) plans and
> individual retirement accounts, in which the earnings would not be
> taxed.
>
> Mr. Thomas offered two general ideas that seemed to have bipartisan
> support.
>
> One would require employers that offered their workers 401(k) plans to
> enroll the workers automatically unless the workers specifically opted
> out.
>
> The other would encourage new forms of annuities that would be
> attractive investments for low-income workers.
>
> [New York Times, May 20, 2005]
>
>
>
> Richard
> -------
> [url]www.xdnc.com[/url]
> Democrats -- Working Hard For America's Families
>[/color]

Debasis Goswami wrote:[color=blue]
> And what that has to do with Toyota newsgroup?
>[/color]

HI TOP POSTER(not my colloquialism). DID YOU SEE THE "OT:" IN THE
SUBject line? That means "Off Topic", from which the casual peruser
can logically imply, "This message has little or nothing to do with
Toyotas".

In essense, your question answered itself.

HTH


PS: I bought a couple of top-rated BF Goodrich tires (Traction T/A H
SL) from tirerack for $114 (incl $14 shipping) (for my trusty TOYOTA
COROLLA). Shipped them to my mechanic -- what a deal

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> On 23 May 2005 12:56:22 -0700, "Learning Richard"
> <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >[New York Times, May 20, 2005][/color]
>
> That's all I need to know...
>[/color]

The fact is, that the Bush Social Security plan was WRITTEN by a
Democrat. So, when you Repubs bellyache that Dems don't advance
solutions, you're wrong.

The reason that Dems won't play ball with Bush is that the author of
the plan himself says that what Bush wants to do simply won't work.

Until Bush swallows that fact, I just hope he keeps his foot firmly
planted on the third rail.


Richard
-------
[url]www.xdnc.com[/url]
E Pluribus Unum

On 24 May 2005 10:16:37 -0700, "Learning Richard"
<learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>Scott in Florida wrote:[color=green]
>> On 23 May 2005 12:56:22 -0700, "Learning Richard"
>> <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >[New York Times, May 20, 2005][/color]
>>
>> That's all I need to know...
>>[/color]
>
>The fact is, that the Bush Social Security plan was WRITTEN by a
>Democrat. So, when you Repubs bellyache that Dems don't advance
>solutions, you're wrong.
>
>The reason that Dems won't play ball with Bush is that the author of
>the plan himself says that what Bush wants to do simply won't work.[/color]

Sure it will work...

The reason all these Arse Holes (boy I just love my new word....stolen
from the Brits) keep saying it won't work is....

1. It takes money out of Washington
2. It lowers the power these Arse Holes in Washington have.
3. It empowers the individual to do his own investing.

[color=blue]
>
>Until Bush swallows that fact, I just hope he keeps his foot firmly
>planted on the third rail.
>
>
>Richard
>-------
>[url]www.xdnc.com[/url]
>E Pluribus Unum[/color]

--

Scott in Florida

Debasis Goswami wrote:
[color=blue]
> And what that has to do with Toyota newsgroup?
>[/color]

You mean a Toyota employee doesnt get a retirement plan? :-(

--


[url]http://www.rightwingstuff.com[/url]
[url]http://www.gop.org[/url]
[url]http://www.townhall.com[/url]



The Second Amendment Is Americas "Original" Homeland Security!
[url]http://www.nra.org[/url]
[url]http://www.nraila.com[/url]

Learning Richard wrote:
[color=blue]
> Bet you didn't know that Bush's plan came from the mind of a Democrat:
>
> WASHINGTON, May 19 - Robert C. Pozen, the business executive who
> developed the theory behind President Bush's plan to trim Social
> Security benefits in the future, urged the president on Thursday to
> drop his insistence on using part of workers' taxes to pay for
> individual investment accounts.[/color]


Ah, and Dust Reid got to him. What idiot would want to invest in that
pile of shit plan (SS) with a terrible rate of return of 1% with a bunch
of hoops to jump through to get?

Richard, go to your finaicial investor, tell him you have this killer
deal. You will put in about 14% of your income before taxes into a
system which pays out at 1% when you turn 65, maybe if its still there
and then get it a small chunk at a time each month, and as soon as you
die, you lose it all. Tell us what he thinks of your killer
risky/stupid investment scheme
--


[url]http://www.rightwingstuff.com[/url]
[url]http://www.gop.org[/url]
[url]http://www.townhall.com[/url]



The Second Amendment Is Americas "Original" Homeland Security!
[url]http://www.nra.org[/url]
[url]http://www.nraila.com[/url]

Josh wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
> news:k4e4919svm8u2rkivr9809a9h7gmltrlus@4ax.com...
>[color=green]
>>On 23 May 2005 12:56:22 -0700, "Learning Richard"
>><learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>[New York Times, May 20, 2005][/color]
>>
>>That's all I need to know...[/color]
>
>
> Ironically it's about all you know.
>
>[/color]
Scott, Josh is a college puke from San Deigo, he knows everything.
Remember when you were young and knew it all too? LOL

--


[url]http://www.rightwingstuff.com[/url]
[url]http://www.gop.org[/url]
[url]http://www.townhall.com[/url]



The Second Amendment Is Americas "Original" Homeland Security!
[url]http://www.nra.org[/url]
[url]http://www.nraila.com[/url]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 04:17:03 GMT, Liberals are the parasites of
society <liberals_are@bloodsuckers.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Josh wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
>> news:k4e4919svm8u2rkivr9809a9h7gmltrlus@4ax.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>On 23 May 2005 12:56:22 -0700, "Learning Richard"
>>><learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[New York Times, May 20, 2005]
>>>
>>>That's all I need to know...[/color]
>>
>>
>> Ironically it's about all you know.
>>
>>[/color]
>Scott, Josh is a college puke from San Deigo, he knows everything.
>Remember when you were young and knew it all too? LOL[/color]

scott, the coward behind a no-name ID is a neocon. He, like you,
doesn't know a FUCKING THING and believe everything the lying asshole
Bush says.


--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! [url]http://signup.databasix.com[/url]
===========================================================================

Liberals are the parasites of society
<liberals_are@bloodsuckers.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Josh wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
>> news:k4e4919svm8u2rkivr9809a9h7gmltrlus@4ax.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>On 23 May 2005 12:56:22 -0700, "Learning Richard"
>>><learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[New York Times, May 20, 2005]
>>>
>>>That's all I need to know...[/color]
>>
>>
>> Ironically it's about all you know.
>>
>>[/color]
>Scott, Josh is a college puke from San Deigo, he knows everything.
>Remember when you were young and knew it all too? LOL[/color]

Yeh...you know, I really think that the more I learned as I grew
older then the more I realized just how much there was that I
didn't know. When one reaches that august point one can be said
to be mature...I'm mature... <sigh>
--


-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"