Former First Lady Barbara Bush got into the Social Security act today in Pensacola, Florida. According to the A.P., Mrs. Bush had this to say, appearing with her sons George W. and Jeb:
"I'm here because your father and I have 17 grandchildren -- all born after 1950 -- and we want to know is someone going to do something about it," she said, referring to Social Security.
Give me a freakin' break. Like anyone in the Bush family is going to find themselves reliant on Social Security. I mean, the whole thrust behind the idea of personal accounts is that people should be responsible for their own retirements, right? Well, hello, if Barbara Freakin' Bush is so concerned about her grandchildren, she should set up a trust fund or refer them to an investment banker. I'm sure she knows a few.
Now, bloggers, here's where we do our job. The President went on to say this: "A mix of conservative bonds and stocks will get you a better rate of return on your money than that which you're going to get inside the government." (Emphasis mine.)
There you go. That's a lie, plain and simple. Is it possible that retirees could do better under a private account plan? Yes. Is it a guarantee? No. But the President just said, unequivocably, that you will do better with private accounts.
He also fails to mention, of course, that privatization does not address the social security shortfall, and he conveniently leaves out that his idea costs trillions more than a tax increase aimed at fully-funding the program.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hmm. I had my own Bushism just now. I am informed that "unequivocably" is not a word. Eh. It is now.
"Like anyone in the Bush family is going to find themselves reliant on Social Security."
Right on, brother Andy.
One of the most surprising, depressing, and audacious moves the Bush family has been to able pull has been to convince the American people that they're...
1) good, southern folk
2) average Joe American citizens
3) not all that wealthy
... when in fact they're...
1) East coast 'elites' (only in relatively recent times have they adopted their Texan personas)
2) Wealthy career politicians with tons of 'old family money.'
3) Multi-millionaires (it was odd, was it not, that Bush supporters derided Kerry - and his wife - for having tons of money, and that somehow that fact made him detached from the 'common man'? When, in reality, Bush and Kerry are both quite rich).
Grrr.
Whoa that's totally a crock of shit. The SEC would come down on any broker's ass who claimed to promise profitable returns. Asshats.
Actually, like the "the British have learned..." statement, this is *technically* true. Since your current social security taxes are not invested in the stock market, the rate of return is 0, so therefore literally anything is "better." It doesn't necessarily mean that you'll get more money though.
Post a Comment