(10-17-04) Kerry: "Bush planning a 'January Surprise'"

[No Limit]

I need to lean back to the left; for some reason I agreed too much with you righties today .

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=173606

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush on Sunday of planning a surprise second-term effort to privatize Social Security and forecast a "disaster for America's middle class."

Republicans denied the charge as scare tactics with little more than two weeks remaining in a tight election. "It is just flat inaccurate," said GOP chairman Ed Gillespie.

Gillespie said the account of Bush's remarks was a "second-hand report and it is just flat inaccurate." Appearing on CNN's "Late Edition," he also said it was based on "hearsay." Gillespie said he often attends events such as the one cited, but added he couldn't be certain whether he had been at the one featured in the story.
Bush's campaign spokesman was more blunt,

"John Kerry's misleading senior scare tactics are just another example of a candidate who will say anything to get elected," said spokesman Steve Schmidt, "no matter how false his accusations or how contradictory they are with his record of repeatedly voting for higher taxes on Social Security."

and
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/press.social.security/index.html

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry seized on a report Sunday that President Bush would seek to quickly privatize Social Security in a second term.
...
Bush "has never used the word privatization," a campaign official said, accusing Kerry of trying to "scare seniors."

Why weren't the Republicans so defensive of private accounts back then? It actually seemed like they were against it since they said these were nothing more than scare tactics. Damn, looks like Kerry might have been right.

 

[Bodacious]

I can't speak for the last quote but I think calling what Kerry said scare tactics was in reference to Kerry saying that it would be a disaster for the middle class.

Personally I expected Bush to bring this up. I thought it was one of the things he was campaigning on.

 

[No Limit]

I can't speak for the last quote but I think calling what Kerry said scare tactics was in reference to Kerry saying that it would be a disaster for the middle class.

Personally I expected Bush to bring this up. I thought it was one of the things he was campaigning on.

What Bush was campaigning for was reforming social security possibly adding SOME privatization while leaving the basic system in place. When Kerry said it would lead to benefit cuts of 25% and the fact the Bush wanted to privatize the entire thing republicans labeled him as just scaring people in to getting them to vote for him. Turns out he was right since as soon as Bush was reelected the first thing he did was push for this.

 

[Bodacious]

What Bush was campaigning for was reforming social security possibly adding SOME privatization while leaving the basic system in place. When Kerry said it would lead to benefit cuts of 25% and the fact the Bush wanted to privatize the entire thing republicans labeled him as just scaring people in to getting them to vote for him. Turns out he was right since as soon as Bush was reelected the first thing he did was push for this.

In that respect, yes Kerry is correct. But I don't think he is correct is saying that this is going to be a disaster for the middle class.

I don't think that because of blind faith for Bush. I think that because I have faith in congress. Whatever change is to be made I think congress should have a healthy debate on the issue and make something sutable for everyone.

 

[Korgoth]

hmmm they also said no draft... lets see.

 

[No Limit]

In that respect, yes Kerry is correct. But I don't think he is correct is saying that this is going to be a disaster for the middle class.

I don't think that because of blind faith for Bush. I think that because I have faith in congress. Whatever change is to be made I think congress should have a healthy debate on the issue and make something sutable for everyone.

If the thing will be a disaster for middle class is debatable, I think it will be but we don't need to get in to that here. I posted this here more to show that Bush changed his position after he won.

I wouldn't have faith in congress because we are completely split right now. The republicans have more control than the democrats so they think they can do whatever and the democrats are bitter about Bush winning so they will do everything they can to stop whatever the Republicans want to do. The point is most Americans don't support Bush's plan (something like only 30% do from recent polls) so that is why the republicans didn't talk about it in the campaign. The system is broken yes, but as Greenspan said today the fix is easy; both sides just have to agree on some changes.

 

[Bodacious]

If the thing will be a disaster for middle class is debatable, I think it will be but we don't need to get in to that here. I posted this here more to show that Bush changed his position after he won.

I wouldn't have faith in congress because we are completely split right now. The republicans have more control than the democrats so they think they can do whatever and the democrats are bitter about Bush winning so they will do everything they can to stop whatever the Republicans want to do. The point is most Americans don't support Bush's plan (something like only 30% do from recent polls) so that is why the republicans didn't talk about it in the campaign. The system is broken yes, but as Greenspan said today the fix is easy; both sides just have to agree on some changes.

There are plenty of things the democrats can do to get what they want. Threaten a fillibuster, fillibuster, and probably a few other things I am not aware of.

 

[blahblahblah]

Yes, all republicans who believe in free market economics are obviously coniving asshats. Its obvious that capitalism has done no good to American society.

In addition, its obvious that social security needs no reform. Afterall, what people don't understand they should try to kill.

/sarcasm

In all seriousness, the government needs to practice an equal amount of liberalism and conservatism to be effective. Case in point. You need liberalism to keep social security, but you need conservatism to keep it working. Quite frankly, its time for some conservatives to make some steps to save the practicality of SS. Once that is done, it will be the responsiblility for liberals to make more advances to society (more government benefits, etc).

The two are constantly at battle but need each other for survival. Bitching about reality is the reason why I stopped reading this particular forum. In fact I don't know why I am in here.

PS - Most republicans are very worried about privatization of social security. Its scary how little people understand Social Security, basic budgeting, and how the stock market really works.

[Edit]: I remember why I clicked on this forum, I meant to go to general games chat and ended up here... :frown: :bonce:

 

[seinfeldrules]

What Bush was campaigning for was reforming social security possibly adding SOME privatization while leaving the basic system in place

That is what he is doing...

 

[No Limit]

That is what he is doing...

No, that is not what he is doing. Read up on what he wants to do.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, that is not what he is doing. Read up on what he wants to do.

He is leaving the basic system in place, but allowing people to divert a % of that system into the private sector. The Gov't would not allow you to place 100% of your retirement $ into the private sector.

 

[No Limit]

He is leaving the basic system in place, but allowing people to divert a % of that system into the private sector. The Gov't would not allow you to place 100% of your retirement $ into the private sector.

We are not talking about private sectors we are talking about private accounts. Meaning all the money would go in to your own presonal retirement plan.

 

[seinfeldrules]

www.whitehouse.gov

As we fix Social Security, we must make it a better deal for our younger workers by allowing them to put part of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts.


Personal accounts would be entirely voluntary.
The money would go into a conservative mix of bond and stock funds that would have the opportunity to earn a higher rate of return than anything the current system could provide.
A young person who earns an average of $35,000 a year over his or her career would have nearly a quarter million dollars saved in his or her own account upon retirement.
That savings would provide a nest egg to supplement that worker’s traditional Social Security check, or to pass on to his or her children.
Best of all, it would replace the empty promises of the current system with real assets of ownership.

See?

 

[No Limit]

www.whitehouse.gov



See?

They would not be voluntary because you would be paying 4% in addition to the 12% that it currently takes out of your check. Who would actually want to do this? So if you do not want to do this you will be getting benefit cuts of about 20% when you retire. I am having a hard time explaining this; I am going home but I have a good article about this somewhere, I'll post it tomorrow.

 

[seinfeldrules]

It says what it says.

 

[No Limit]

It says what it says.

Yes, it says what it says but keep in mind it is on the whitehouse web site. The 'voluntary' term is highly misleading. Like I said, I'll have an article for you tomorrow that will make more sense.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yes, it says what it says but keep in mind it is on the whitehouse web site. The 'voluntary' term is highly misleading. Like I said, I'll have an article for you tomorrow that will make more sense.

I'm sure that will be the most objective article I've ever read...

 

[jondy]

Wait till he actually shows everyone it, eh

 

[bliink]

I'm sure that will be the most objective article I've ever read...

Translation: "I have nothing to contribute to this thread, but I will post anyway, because it is a chance to derride my fellow forumite"

Get on topic.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Translation: "I have nothing to contribute to this thread, but I will post anyway, because it is a chance to derride my fellow forumite"

I contributed plenty to the thread. The entire thing was on the topic of Social Security reform. We'll wait and see how this article turns out, if it presents the situation objectively I'll apologize.

 

[No Limit]

I am having a hard time finding the article which is a shame as it did a good job of analyzing it. However, this gets to the point:

It's not "voluntary" and comes with benefit cuts.

To pay for creating individual accounts, this measure would change the way one's social security benefits are calculated using a price index, instead of wages (although wages rise faster than inflation). Benefits would be reduced, and these cuts would apply to everyone. For today's young worker, this would mean a 40 percent cut in benefits. Even if one chooses not to participate in these accounts, benefits would still be reduced. Workers who remain in the traditional system would experience a benefit cut of $9,000 per year when they retire.

http://cwa-legislative.org/factsheets/federal.asp?id=20

So sure, it is "voluntary" by definition but if you chose not to enroll in it you will lose around $9,000 each year when you retire. So by practice it is not "voluntary".

It makes no sense to make individual accounts part of Social Security. There already exists a plan for individual accounts to save up for retirement on top of Social Security -- they are called 401 (K) plans and IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts). According to researcher Peter Orzag of the Brookings Institute, only 35 of all females today opt-in to 401 (K) plans, while 86 percent opt-out. Only 19 percent of Hispanics opt-in, while 75 percent opt-out. What American workers need is an easier way for them to save.

Why would we pay 2 trillion for something we already have?

 

[kmack]

lol, no real news here, obviously Bush was going back to attacks against poor and middle classes (he is a republican afterall) let's see, there was the bill to stop people from suing big corporations for large sums of money, the new harsher bankruptcy policies, ugh, the list goes on

 

[seinfeldrules]

Why would we pay 2 trillion for something we already have?

Because this is a better way to use money that would normally be wasted. People are really overreacting on this by claiming that Bush is going to push SS into all private accounts. Wrong. You still have guaranteed money. The problem is; the guaranteed money isnt enough, you need something else to supplement it. Your article mentions that there is no immediate need to change social security. In that regard it is correct. However, do we really need to wait until there is an immediate need to change it? We all know that day will come in our lifetimes. Should we really sit it out until then?

 

[No Limit]

Because this is a better way to use money that would normally be wasted. People are really overreacting on this by claiming that Bush is going to push SS into all private accounts. Wrong. You still have guaranteed money. The problem is; the guaranteed money isnt enough, you need something else to supplement it. Your article mentions that there is no immediate need to change social security. In that regard it is correct. However, do we really need to wait until there is an immediate need to change it? We all know that day will come in our lifetimes. Should we really sit it out until then?

But you missed my point. How is this any different than IRAs?

 

[seinfeldrules]

How is this any different than IRAs?

I see it as basically an addon rather than losing money through a traditional SS setup.

 

[No Limit]

I see it as basically an addon rather than losing money through a traditional SS setup.

But again, how is this different than IRAs? Why do we need to spend 2 trillion (2 trillion we can't afford) on something we already have?

Did you also read where it said that most Americans choose not participate in IRAs, what makes you think they would feel any different about this?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Why do we need to spend 2 trillion (2 trillion we can't afford) on something we already have?

Because I'd rather fix this now and have money down the line than fix it the day before I reach retirement age with a quick fix.

Did you also read where it said that most Americans choose not participate in IRAs, what makes you think they would feel any different about this?

Again, it would be a supplemental. If they dont want the extra money (and risk) then thats their choice. The final plan is long from complete as well. Bush has said he is open to suggestions.

 

[No Limit]

Because I'd rather fix this now and have money down the line than fix it the day before I reach retirement age with a quick fix.


Again, it would be a supplemental. If they dont want the extra money (and risk) then thats their choice. The final plan is long from complete as well. Bush has said he is open to suggestions.

But look you are still not telling me how this is any different than IRAs, it isn't. So why spend 2 trillion? All this is is a disguise to cut SS benefits; the republicans will never tell you this as it would be political kill. This is why I at least respect Greenspan somewhat; he admitted all this really is is a benefit cut.

Now you say Bush wants debate on this; how can you debate anything with him if he isn't being straight on what this really is?

 

[Bodacious]

But look you are still not telling me how this is any different than IRAs, it isn't. So why spend 2 trillion? All this is is a disguise to cut SS benefits; the republicans will never tell you this as it would be political kill. This is why I at least respect Greenspan somewhat; he admitted all this really is is a benefit cut.

Now you say Bush wants debate on this; how can you debate anything with him if he isn't being straight on what this really is?

I haven't read much on this recently so I am not up to snuff, but, so what if bush wanted a cut? That is the dmocrat's only answer to fixing SS as well and they also want to raise taxes.

 

[No Limit]

I haven't read much on this recently so I am not up to snuff, but, so what if bush wanted a cut? That is the dmocrat's only answer to fixing SS as well and they also want to raise taxes.

No, Democrats are open to debate. But again, how can you debate someone when they aren't honest about what this is? Democrats have asked for time to debate this; they were called 'distant from reality' and that they didn't want to save social security. Luckily Bush backed off from his plan today as he knew this would not pass; but for some reason I skeptical that he is actually willing to make some of the changes Democrats want and take off private accounts that will benefit big business. Can you tell me anything Bush said he would changed in his plan over the last 3 months he has been promoting this? I sure can't meaning he doesn't actually want any debate; it's his way or the highway.

 

[seinfeldrules]

how can you debate anything with him if he isn't being straight on what this really is?

It is a reform of SS. He is looking for a method to increase output so that I actually get something back from all the money I put in.

Now you say Bush wants debate on this;

Bush says it, not me.

 

[No Limit]

It is a reform of SS. He is looking for a method to increase output so that I actually get something back from all the money I put in.

The average return on your money is said to be 3.3% if the market goes real well. Now, since the government is lending that 2 trillion they will take 3% from you in taxes; so you are getting a return of around .3% if things go really well. Wow, how amazing. And if somehow the market doesn't do well and you only get 2% you are shit out of luck.

Also, if the market starts going down you can't withdraw this money so again, you are shit out of luck. With IRAs you would be able to take this money out as you would have total control.

Bush says it, not me.

Bush says a lot of things. You said Bush is willing to listen to the other side; aka debate. As I said, no he is not willing to do this.

 

[seinfeldrules]

You said Bush is willing to listen to the other side; aka debate. As I said, no he is not willing to do this.

And you say Democrats are, when they are clearly more interested in pursuing political agendas than fixing SS.

Now, since the government is lending that 2 trillion they will take 3% from you in taxes;

Where does it say anything about raising taxes? The cuts will most likely come from some place else. What is my average return for every dollar I put into SS right now? I would be willing to bet I am losing money rather than gaining it.