CEOs don’t refuse Social Security checks

Posted by realchange (anonymous) on August 31, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You may want to check your information. Congress does have a good medical plan, but theirs is through various private insurance companies such Blue Cross. The same as corporations provide for their employees. The have a choice between many companies and types of plans to suit their needs. It is NOT a government plan.

No CEO's do not refused social security and Medicare. They paid for it, they deserve it. Some have tried to refuse, but the government won't or can't let them.

Check your facts, the majority of Americans do not want a government program, they are both Democrats AND republicans, because they know that socialized medicine does not work and we do not want to become a socialist country.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on August 31, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is just going to be an option.

Posted by HenryLea (anonymous) on August 31, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice letter Rose. I think realchange does not understand that the taxpayers are paying for the Congressional health insurance plans and that my friend makes it a government program. The point about CEO's accepting Social Security and Medicare is that these same people want all of us who need SS and Medicare, either now or in the future, to simply give it all up so that the CEO's can accumulate even more wealth = it is called crony capitalism where the very wealthy simply support and cover for each other at the expense of us all. The fact to check is this one. Do the survey on Social Security, Medicare, Veteran's Health Insurance benefits, Medicaid for the disabled and poor - Most Americans do in fact support all of these government programs and of course the Military industrial funding, law enforcement, the judicial system, the road and bridges you drive on etc etc etc = all are government funded programs plus all are supported by the majority of Americans because the majority of Americans want to live in a safe and civil society.

Posted by newyankee (anonymous) on August 31, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Rose, I think the Bush administration floated the idea of 4% of an individual’s social security could be put in a private account.

It sounds like Rose is a bit confused and a little light on the facts. I wonder if she understands the difference between Insurance and Health Care. In her extensive research I wonder if she understands the costs the Feds and State government has imposed on those of us who pay for our insurance. These regulations and mandates are significant costs. Some of us would like the option to have the tax benefits and buy our insurance in the free market. Some of us want more freedom, not less. A government created mess being “fixed” by piling on more government to the point of socialism is fine for the DFL but not for “right-wingers”.

I believe the “Current Occupant” has made it clear that his goal is the elimination of the health insurance companies. But as it stands today, it is just an option, or co-op, or whatever.

Posted by GH2ORepub (anonymous) on August 31, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My retirement plan (NO Social Security) is similar to what Pres. Bush advocated. My monthly income is about 3 times what Social Security pays.

Please note that my extra monthly income can go along way in terms of paying my medical bills.

Realizing that the Stock Market does go up and down, mostly up however, I converted some of the market gains in the last 25 years to financial instruments where the value is insured.

I am beginning to wonder if one must have a college major In Math to appreciate what Bush proposed.

Participation was VOLUNTARY! I believe his proposal contained several options from guaranteed interest rates to participation in the Stock Market. Remember the word “Voluntary”.

It seems to me that when he said “Stock market” everyone quit thinking. That was just plain dumb.

I also think that AARP was wrong about what Bush proposed. That is why I would never join that group.

One needs to spend some time studying and pondering the various options.

Posted by Culture_Warrior (anonymous) on August 31, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rose, I submit to you that not only are you and Rep. Walz dead wrong on Obamacare, but this will be the issue that takes him down in 2010. A lot of Independents who helped Obama and Walz get elected are furious over this sham and will not be voting for either one of them.

Posted by conserned (anonymous) on August 31, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great letter Rose. It is too bad that somee can't see the forrest for the trees. I am amazed at some of the misinformation that the members of the party of NO bring to the table. It is amazing when so many seniors lost their entire retirement money in the stock market that GH20Repl made so much $$. He should be in the investment business. So do you want to turn your SS $ over to the vultures in the stock market. The only ones who advocate that is the stock brokers and large investors who control the markte and the Bush boys who want to reward their large contributors. Keep it up Rose you are right on target. You are evidently too much for the party of NO members. B.O. will survive and this country will turn around under his hard work. Guess who got us into this mess and they don't want to do anything to get us out. Who was it that was in charge in the depression? Seems like the party of NO got us into these messes with their "policies."

Posted by GH2ORepub (anonymous) on August 31, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Concrned:

You have to understand that much of my nearly 6 figure retirement income came from pensions funds managed by a fair number of people smarted than I am.

Those funds were invested in a wide variety of funds not all of which were in the stock market.

I am a great believer in diversification and suspicious of all politicians.

Posted by Independant (anonymous) on September 1, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SS is a legalized ponzi scheme. If any corporation tried that sham they'd all be in jail. It is not my responsibility to fund my parents retirement, just as I don't expect my kids to fund mine.
I see nothing wrong if I want to take MY MONEY and invest it where I see fit. If I lose out, that is my tough cookies and I suffer the consequences. Why should I pay in and let the gov't invest in some failed program. Let me choose what to do with my money. It is time for an option to opt out of SS. Bush was an idiot but he was on the right track with SS.