Social Security

[Bodacious]

This applies to Americans. Who thinks there isn't a social security crisis as Ted Kennedy would have you believe?

Social Security is fundamental to the integrity of that safety net. Never before - until now - has any President, Republican or Democrat, attacked the basic guarantee of Social Security. Never before - until now - has any President, Republican or Democrat, proposed a cut in Social Security benefits. Yet President Bush is talking not just about a cut, but an incredible 33 percent cut. We must oppose it - and we will defeat it.

We will not let any President turn the American dream into a nightmare for senior citizens and a bonanza for Wall Street.

The biggest threat to Social Security today is not the retirement of the baby boomers. It's George Bush and the Republican Party.

Ann Lewis, who worked for Bill Clinton said:

: I'm going to tell you what, he's wrong. There is no crisis. I repeat, the people who are telling us it's a crisis now are the people who were telling us there were weapons of mass destruction. George Bush wants to lower the Social Security benefits by 25%. That's wrong. The market goes down again today by a hundred points. That's insecurity. It's a mistake. I don't think he'll do it.

What about Save Social Security First?

Here is the article in case the link doesn't work:

“Save Social Security First”?
Just a few years ago, Democrats talked about a crisis they now deny exists.



The latest line of attack against President Bush's still-unformed plan to reform the Social Security system is the charge that the White House is manufacturing a phony Social Security "crisis" to sell its proposal. "The fabricated crisis is the hallmark of the Bush presidency," Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson wrote this week. "To attain goals that he had set for himself before he took office — the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the privatization of Social Security — he concocted crises where there were none." A number of other commentators, and also some news reporters, have joined in the same theme in recent weeks.

A key document in the controversy, a strategy memo written in early January by White House aide Peter Wehner — a top assistant to political chief Karl Rove — does not use the word "crisis," but it does say clearly that Social Security is headed for trouble. "Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg," Wehner writes. "We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform."

To some commentators, Wehner's analysis suggested that the White House planned to stir up a phony "crisis." But in fact it appears that President Bush is not only relying on accepted economic wisdom about Social Security's future financial viability but also, in his campaign for reform, borrowing a page from the public-relations playbook of his predecessor, Bill Clinton.

In 1998, the major policy question in Washington was what to do with enormous anticipated federal budget surpluses. Republicans, arguing that a surplus meant the government was taking in too much money, wanted to cut taxes. Clinton wanted to kill any tax-cut proposal before it had a chance to gather support. So in his 1998 State of the Union speech, he came up with a famous slogan.

"What should we do with this projected surplus?" Clinton said. "I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."

Soon Clinton was going around the country, touting a coming Social Security "crisis." All of his administration's economic achievements, he said in February 1998, "are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." There should be no new spending — or, more importantly, no tax cuts — "before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."

A number of Clinton's arguments back then sound uncannily like Bush's today, if one makes a few adjustments for newly revised figures on Social Security's finances. "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system," Clinton said, again in February 1998. "By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."

Clinton's Social Security-crisis campaign, while a response to Republican plans for the surplus, was also a way for him to go on the political offensive during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As the scandal grew, he became more interested in fighting off impeachment than forestalling tax cuts. But Social Security remained a potent rhetorical weapon. In September, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security pep rally with congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. Gore said that in coming years — by 2032 — "Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis." Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire.

"Save Social Security first," said Gore.

"Save Social Security first," said Gephardt.

"Save Social Security first," said Kennedy.

"Save Social Security first," said Boxer.

Today, some of those same lawmakers are leading the opposition to President Bush's initiative and no longer fear a crisis in Social Security. And indeed, by 1999, after GOP tax-cut proposals had been defeated and he escaped conviction in his Senate impeachment trial, Social Security's future became a less urgent issue to Clinton. In his 957-page autobiography, My Life, Clinton included no extended discussion of Social Security at all.

Back in 1998, Democrats realized it was politically safe to rally around Clinton's statements about a Social Security crisis because they knew he did not really intend to take any action that matched his rhetoric. They also knew that Clinton's words were correct; Social Security was then, as it is now, facing a "looming fiscal crisis." He just didn't plan to do much about it.

Now, things are different. George W. Bush, by all accounts, intends to take substantial action. And as he prepares the way for that action, he has decided to use elements of the old Clinton campaign to make his case. Last week, under questioning by reporters, White House spokesman Scott McClellan read an extended passage from Clinton's February 1998 "looming fiscal crisis" statement without first revealing the source of the quote. That wasn't President Bush, McClellan then explained. "That was February 9, 1998, in remarks given by President Clinton. This has been a problem that has been looming for quite some time."

So who is trying to scare the American people now? Who is trying to mislead the American people? Why are the democrats reniging on fixing social security? If privatizing it is so wrong, what is a better solution?

 

[Scoobnfl]

It's in trouble for sure. There will be more people drawing from it than paying into it, and that is bad.

We should legalise pot and use the money from 1/2 the taxes on it to shore up social security and the other 1/2 for education, both primary and secondary.

 

[Nickcpus]

Social security belongs to the people, not the government. If its in bad shape, its because the government is abusing it. I firmly believe SS should be placed in an account under the individual’s name. That account should then draw above average interest throughout its lifespan. Upon the owners death it should be treated no different than property owned by the person. The account could then be willed, inherited, or donated accordingly. Funds left over would just roll over into next person retirement/Social Security account.

 

[No Limit]

What you fail to address is that Democrats wanted changes; republicans comepletely want to throw away the system and start over. Let me ask you, where are we to get the 10 trillion dollars this will cost? From our social security reserve? Oh no, wait, Bush already spent that and there is no way the government will ever have the needed money to pay back that reserve.

And this crisis, what is it exactly? Because last I read the system isn't going to run out until about 50 years from now. Don't you think this gives us time to actually think about this instead of doing it overnight and giving corporations lots of money instead of getting that money to the people that the system was designed for?

 

[Bodacious]

What you fail to address is that Democrats wanted changes;

Did you not read the article I quoted? From the article:

"What should we do with this projected surplus?" Clinton said. "I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."

That is just one. There are other quotes of what Democrats said in that article.

Your accusation is false.

republicans comepletely want to throw away the system and start over. Let me ask you, where are we to get the 10 trillion dollars this will cost? From our social security reserve? Oh no, wait, Bush already spent that and there is no way the government will ever have the needed money to pay back that reserve.

What is your source saying it will cost 10 trillion dollars to fix SS? Clinton borrowed just as much from the SS trust as Bush did, if not more.

Your accusation that republicans want to do away with social security is false as well.

And this crisis, what is it exactly? Because last I read the system isn't going to run out until about 50 years from now. Don't you think this gives us time to actually think about this instead of doing it overnight and giving corporations lots of money instead of getting that money to the people that the system was designed for?

So you will give a blind eye to social security now but I bet you think global warming is something we need to start taking care of today, huh? If not you then other democrats do.

The people aren't going to have money if there isn't any to give them.

 

[satch919]

I don't belong to any of those parties. Maybe not a crisis but its definitly something worth looking at and reforming.

Here's what I posted in another thread:

Sure people want some change to Social Security. I think it needs to be reformed as well. But Bush's social security proposals just aren't going to work. Privatizing it isn't the answer. Lets see. Why would you have every citizen set up a separate account? The only people who benefit from that are the people who sell stock and manage portfolios. These people stand to make billions of dollars in fees off this plan, which is the reason why it's being pushed.

Bush claims that by the time 20 year olds retire, the system will be bankrupt. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will be able to rely on the trust funds until 2052 and after that will still be able to pay 81 percent of scheduled benefits.

Under Bush's SS plan, If you make 80,000 dollars or less a year, you are paying full fare on every nickel you earn - but people making more, are not taxed beyond the first $80,000. Now, does that sound right to you?

Honestly, I don't have a clue about how to reform it because Im not an economist nor have I really studied the entire SS "crisis". But those that specialize in SS or the economy can come up with something. As I understand it, privatizing SS has been tried in other countries and has failed.

 

[Scoobnfl]

What I really don't get about Social Security is why everyone gets upset when talk about changing it is brought up. It's an awfully bloated, expensive and bungled bureaucratic dinosaur.

Private industry continuously out performs the govt. in virtually any category. Why would managing $$$ be any different.

Not only does the govt. waste etc.. eat up social security $$$$ but the paltry amount the benfactors are paid is laughable.

Social security needs an overhaul. Clintoon and his bunch of clowns foresaw the crisis, Bush sees the crisis, and anyone with a shread of sense knows that the system must be changed or at the very least over funded to restabilize it.

 

[No Limit]

That is just one. There are other quotes of what Democrats said in that article.

Your accusation is false.

What are you talking about? I said they DID want changes, just not changes where large corporations get to gain a lot of profit while the person that is receiving the social security gets screwed because many of their benefits will be cut.

What is your source saying it will cost 10 trillion dollars to fix SS? Clinton borrowed just as much from the SS trust as Bush did, if not more.

Your accusation that republicans want to do away with social security is false as well.

I don't have a source right now, a simple google search will find that for you. I remember it being 10 trillion in a period of a few years. If you can't google that number I will help you out when I get the time.

I don't mean they want to do away with it, I mean they want to completely change it. First off, social security was created by democrats. If Republicans had their way old people would have nothing now; I don't think they have a right to even touch it. Second, like I said, there is no crisis even if this is what the administration wants you to think. We have almost 50 years to fix this problem; why should Bush be in a rush to get things changed so soon? Oh yeah, because he is scaring you in to thinking there is some crisis and if he doesn't fix it NOW our old people will starve to death.

 

[Bodacious]

What are you talking about? I said they DID want changes, just not changes where large corporations get to gain a lot of profit while the person that is receiving the social security gets screwed because many of their benefits will be cut.

Your accusation that, "What you fail to address is that Democrats wanted changes" when the democrats words were listed in the article I posted is what I am talking about.

I don't have a source right now, a simple google search will find that for you. I remember it being 10 trillion in a period of a few years. If you can't google that number I will help you out when I get the time.

Oh so by asking, " where are we to get the 10 trillion dollars this will cost?" in reference to the fixing of social security, what this thread is about, you are referenceing the national debt?

The cost to fix social security does not = national debt.

I don't mean they want to do away with it, I mean they want to completely change it. First off, social security was created by democrats. If Republicans had their way old people would have nothing now; I don't think they have a right to even touch it. Second, like I said, there is no crisis even if this is what the administration wants you to think. We have almost 50 years to fix this problem; why should Bush be in a rush to get things changed so soon? Oh yeah, because he is scaring you in to thinking there is some crisis and if he doesn't fix it NOW our old people will starve to death.

Oh, so you can predect the future can you? That is a trait most naysaying democrats seem to have around here. Cpt Stern predicting terrorist attacks and Iraq being the equivilant of a haulocaust and you predicting what "would have happened" had the republicans been in charge.

Back on topic, do you not see the topic here, in 1998 Clinon, Pelosi, the lot of them wanted to change social security, they had no idea how, but they wanted to do it. Now someone is doing something about it and they are getting their panties in a twist.

Not once have I seen a better solution from the other side.

Another point of hypocrisy: Sure, it will be 50 years before we see this stuff Bush, the SS admin, and the democrats of yesterday want to fix, but it will also be THOUSANDS of years before we see Castastophic "Day After Tomorrow" effects of "Global Warming" but ecironmentalists want people to feel guilty for driving SUVs.

Hipocrisy at it's finest right there.

No one has answered my questions yet:

So who is trying to scare the American people now? Who is trying to mislead the American people? Why are the democrats reniging on fixing social security? If privatizing it is so wrong, what is a better solution?

I have provided proof of democrat reneging. There is no better solution from the otehr side. All you hear is conspiracy therories, oh noes!

 

[No Limit]

Source for my figure:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003668.html

Over the next 45 years (the time where the 'crisis' is supposed to take place) it will cost around 15 trillion dollars for this transition, costing more than it will save.

Oh, so you can predect the future can you? That is a trait most naysaying democrats seem to have around here. Cpt Stern predicting terrorist attacks and Iraq being the equivilant of a haulocaust and you predicting what "would have happened" had the republicans been in charge.

Actually researching something is not predicting the future. Here:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Social Security "assets are projected to be exhausted in 2042," at which point, if left unchanged, "tax income would cover 73 percent of costs"; the report states that the system could still pay out 68 percent by 2078.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412100012

the year in which the trust fund balance (and thus the trust fund ratio) falls to zero -- is 2052 in CBO's projection."

Another point of hypocrisy: Sure, it will be 50 years before we see this stuff Bush, the SS admin, and the democrats of yesterday want to fix, but it will also be THOUSANDS of years before we see Castastophic "Day After Tomorrow" effects of "Global Warming" but ecironmentalists want people to feel guilty for driving SUVs.

What the hell has that have to do with anything?

 

[burner69]

Another point of hypocrisy: Sure, it will be 50 years before we see this stuff Bush, the SS admin, and the democrats of yesterday want to fix, but it will also be THOUSANDS of years before we see Castastophic "Day After Tomorrow" effects of "Global Warming" but ecironmentalists want people to feel guilty for driving SUVs.

Hipocrisy at it's finest right there.

What a hypocracy! Being bothered about the future of our species. And we don't kno if or when mass flooding will begin - thousands of years... hundreds.... decades... never? Who knows, seems a bit daft to risk billions of lives in the future so you don't have to feel guilty in your vehicle. Especially when there are plenty of nice fuel alternatives that the corporations don't want you to get hold of because they're cheaper.

 

[Bodacious]

Source for my figure:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003668.html

Over the next 45 years (the time where the 'crisis' is supposed to take place) it will cost around 15 trillion dollars for this transition, costing more than it will save.

It sure is nice to say things are going to cost X much and not back it up. The link you posted has no working source.

Actually researching something is not predicting the future. Here:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Social Security "assets are projected to be exhausted in 2042," at which point, if left unchanged, "tax income would cover 73 percent of costs"; the report states that the system could still pay out 68 percent by 2078.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412100012

My reference to "predicting the future" was what you said if republicans implemented SS.

Your point with these figures is? If we are only paying out 68% of what people should be getting don't you think you would feel just a tad bit shafted?

What the hell has that have to do with anything?

For one, the democratic party doesn't want to touch social security now, when the did in 1998.

For two, democrats want environmental reform, something that affects american lives, to be passed today, but they don't want SS to be fixed, when they know it is in trouble.

 

[justmatt]

I think the more important question is, "Is the crisis something that we need to fix NOW, and is it something that we need to fix the way George Bush wants to?"

I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks Social Security is just A-OK. The real issue at debate, politically, is what to do about it and when.

 

[No Limit]

It sure is nice to say things are going to cost X much and not back it up. The link you posted has no working source.

Are you denying this will cost that? I am getting sick of this source thing, if you need one search google. I am at work and have better things to do instead of playing these games with everything I provide not being a valid source. They got that figure out of a government funded study I believe, so search for it.

Your point with these figures is? If we are only paying out 68% of what people should be getting don't you think you would feel just a tad bit shafted?

Yah, in over 70 years from now we can still be paying out 68% of social security, is this the crisis you were talking about?

From dictionary.com:

crisis - An unstable condition, as in political, social, or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change.

There is nothing impending or abrupt with our social security system.

For one, the democratic party doesn't want to touch social security now, when the did in 1998.

For two, democrats want environmental reform, something that affects american lives, to be passed today, but they don't want SS to be fixed, when they know it is in trouble.

Find me a quote from a mainstream democract that says democrats aren't worried about social security in the long run? The problem is that they want a logical resolution to the problem; not a quick reform that will cost billions each year and the only real benefits will be for Bush's buddies that donated money to him. When I see a cop trying to pull me over my first impulse might be to run, but if I actually think about the issue I will make a much smarter choice. This is what the democrats are trying to do.

The enviroment? Again, this has nothing to do with it. Again, if your Republican friends had the say you would currently be breathing in deadly chemicals from different manufacturers. The enviroment is a problem that could kill people today; it is a known fact social security won't be a problem until around 2050.

 

[burner69]

I don't know a lot about US SS (but I'm learning quite a bit - cheerz guys), but yeah, pollution is killing people today.

In London, for example, you are twice as likely to die of lung cancer than if you live in a rural area. Is that pollution? I think so. Should we try and reduce it? Definately. Can we tackle SS and environmental issues at the same time? You'd hope so.

 

[Bodacious]

Ask and ye shall revieve. This is a quote from Harry Reid.

Here's a crisis that doesn't exist. If I had a mortgage on my home for 40 years and I knew I could make the payments every month, would that be a crisis? The answer is no. We have no crisis. For the next 50 years, people on Social Security, if we do nothing, will draw a hundred percent of their benefits. Even after the 50 years if we decide to do nothing congressionally they can still draw 80% of their benefits. That's not a crisis.

More stuff From redi about SS not being a Crisis.

Here is more emphasis on Clinton's effort to fix social security.

Look, if you want to argue whether or not SS is a crisis or not go ahead.

But why do democratic leaders of 1998 say it is a crisis and the democratic leaders of 2005 say it isn't?

Reid's only solution is to raise retirement age. That cuts benefits.

 

[No Limit]

Here's a crisis that doesn't exist. If I had a mortgage on my home for 40 years and I knew I could make the payments every month, would that be a crisis? The answer is no. We have no crisis. For the next 50 years, people on Social Security, if we do nothing, will draw a hundred percent of their benefits. Even after the 50 years if we decide to do nothing congressionally they can still draw 80% of their benefits. That's not a crisis.

I agree 100% with him, there is no crisis; that's all he is saying. Democrats in 98 weren't saying there was a crisis, they were saying there was a problem. They didn't reform it completely because there was lots of time. Now what Bush wants to do is completely change when there is still plenty of time.

I honestly don't know how you got that he didn't want to do anything from the Tim Russert interview:

And if the president has some ideas about trying to improve it, I'll talk to him, and we as Democrats will, but we are not going to let Wall Street hijack Social Security. It won't happen. They are trying to destroy Social Security.

Right there he clearly says he wants to work on imporvement; however, he does disagree with the administration (how unamerican of him).

Look, if you want to argue whether or not SS is a crisis or not go ahead.

This is what you are trying to argue; your entire post was about a crisis that doesn't exist.Reid was arguing against that crisis in that quote you posted. Did you read the definition of crisis?

 

[Kangy]

I don't know a lot about US SS (but I'm learning quite a bit - cheerz guys), but yeah, pollution is killing people today.

In London, for example, you are twice as likely to die of lung cancer than if you live in a rural area. Is that pollution? I think so. Should we try and reduce it? Definately. Can we tackle SS and environmental issues at the same time? You'd hope so.

It's not entirely pollution, there are also social trends (smoking, going to clubs full of smoke, meeting friends who smoke, going to a large company office and taking a fag break) that will contribute to that, where as in the country, most smokers will not meet non-smokers so much, etc.

 

[Bodacious]

Here is a good piece that puts my view into perspective.

 

[satch919]

Here is a good piece that puts my view into perspective.

Aww, dude that link sucks. Looks like an extreme Conservative site. One ad on there says, "Your mutual fund may support abortion, pornography and more." :sarcasm: Thats terrible considering that our taxes go into making weapons that wipe out entire families who are innocent. But wait, my mutual fund supports abortion and pornography?!?! Why, thats an outrage! Run for the hills!!! /sarcasm

Thats not the only ad that got my attention. Take a look at the Ann Coulter one. That lady's ideas sound like the psychotic ramblings of an insane asylum inmate. Come on.

 

[No Limit]

Here is a good piece that puts my view into perspective.

This is what bugs me about you republicans. I address everything you throw at me, when I throw something at you you ignore me and instead point me to some dumb article as if that will have more credibility.

You can not defend the administration's policy on this but let me guess, you still support it? Right?

 

[No Limit]

According to the latest annual report of the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds, the surplus in 2004 was $64.4 billion dollars. It will be higher this year — at $87.7 billion. The surplus will keep getting bigger and bigger through 2008, when it will reach $108 billion. Each year, that’s more and more money that the federal government won’t have to raise from the world capital markets. It’s a captive audience of bond buyers — and a growing one.

But in 2009, just 5 years from now, the surplus will start to shrink. In 2009 it will fall to $103.7 billion, and in that year the federal government will have to go to the capital markets to raise $4.3 billion that it didn’t have to raise the year before. That’s not a lot of money in the grand governmental scheme of things. But it’s an important turning point for Social Security — it’s the year the crisis begins.

From your article it uses the following logic, if I lend you $1,000 this month and only lend you $800 next month I am a drag on your finances.

Here is a perfect site debunking that specific article you posted:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501110005

 

[satch919]

From your article it uses the following logic, if I lend you $1,000 this month and only lend you $800 next month I am a drag on your finances.

Here is a perfect site debunking that specific article you posted:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501110005

GO GO GO!!!! I got your back!

Bush claims that he's a Conservative and is fiscally responsible but yet we have a $37 trillion dollar debt. Lets spend spend spend and let other generations pick up the tab. Who cares about the future right?

 

[Bodacious]

From your article it uses the following logic, if I lend you $1,000 this month and only lend you $800 next month I am a drag on your finances.

LOL! There are a lot people today, including Harry Reid's grandmother, are toatally dependant on the $1000 their brother is
loaning them, and don't have any other means of income? Going from $1000 to $800 is a pretty big paycut.

You can not defend the administration's policy on this but let me guess, you still support it? Right?

No, instead of using my valuable time to refute your postion I posted that article that gets my point across.

Aww, dude that link sucks. Looks like an extreme Conservative site.

Hahah, more hipocrisy, I love it. I cna't use a conservative article, but you say absolutly nothing about No limit using leftcoaster.com. *applauds*

 

[Bodacious]

Here is an article the cites Bill clinton as saying, " that the nation's economic and social gains were 'threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security."

No mainstream democrats are denying that, when Bill Clinton Said it first.

 

[satch919]

Hahah, more hipocrisy, I love it. I cna't use a conservative article, but you say absolutly nothing about No limit using leftcoaster.com. *applauds*

1. That was on the first page. I didn't read through all of it.

2. Never even heard of leftcoaster.com. Is that supposed to be a joke or something? EDIT - its supposed to be theleftcoaster.com

Unbiased sources ONLY!!! Thats fair right?

 

[No Limit]

Here is an article the cites Bill clinton as saying, " that the nation's economic and social gains were 'threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security."

No mainstream democrats are denying that, when Bill Clinton Said it first.

Ok, first lets look at the entire context of the quote, you republicans love to leave that out:

"And all of you know to a greater or lesser degree of specificity, every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements -- the economic achievements, our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children [of the Clinton era] -- all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." -- President Bill Clinton, February 9, 1998

Now, what he is clearly talking about is a crisis for the children of his era, not todays elderly like Bush is saying. The kids of the clinton era won't be on social security for a good 50 years after that speech. See how adding the entire context helps?

 

[Death.Trap]

Ok, first lets look at the entire context of the quote, you republicans love to leave that out:


Now, what he is clearly talking about is a crisis for the children of his era, not todays elderly like Bush is saying. The kids of the clinton era won't be on social security for a good 50 years after that speech. See how adding the entire context helps?

Do you have a quote of Bush saying that he's the social security crisis will affect todays elderly?

 

[Bodacious]

Any comment on this, No Limit?

LOL! There are a lot of people today, including Harry Reid's grandmother, who are toatally dependant on the $1000 their brother is
loaning them, and don't have any other means of income. Going from $1000 to $800 is a pretty big paycut.

 

[No Limit]

Any comment on this, No Limit?

Sure, why not even if you ignore a good portion of my points.

You are missing the entire point. When a huge cut of my check goes to social security I expect it to be there. The problem is that our government keeps borrowing money from the surplus to the point where they will never be able to pay it back. Sure, democrats did this to some point but Bush has taken it to a whole new level. When Clinton was in office we had a national surplus, this surplus is now a devastating defecit meaning Bush has to take out more and more money from the social security surplus. Instead of reforming the tax system and how government spends money Bush wants to instead reform social security so the government will get a better cut; they won't have to raise taxes for their friends in big business; and wall street will benefit largely from this. On the other hand the people that actually pay for the system get a good chunk of their benefits cut all in the name of big business.

I gave you a reply now tell me (As you ignored this once) where will we get the trillions of dollars this 'switch' requires?

Do you have a quote of Bush saying that he's the social security crisis will affect todays elderly?

Read the article, it says there will be a crisis in 2009; this is completely false as I pointed out. 09' being only 4 years away it would affect our elderly.

 

[Bodacious]

Sure, why not even if you ignore a good portion of my points.

You are missing the entire point. When a huge cut of my check goes to social security I expect it to be there. The problem is that our government keeps borrowing money from the surplus to the point where they will never be able to pay it back. Sure, democrats did this to some point but Bush has taken it to a whole new level. When Clinton was in office we had a national surplus, this surplus is now a devastating defecit meaning Bush has to take out more and more money from the social security surplus.

But who gave Clinton that surplus? You seem to forget it was the republican controlled congress.

Instead of reforming the tax system and how government spends money Bush wants to instead reform social security so the government will get a better cut; they won't have to raise taxes for their friends in big business; and wall street will benefit largely from this. On the other hand the people that actually pay for the system get a good chunk of their benefits cut all in the name of big business.

First, there isn't going to be an increase on SS taxes at all. I don't know where you got that from.

Your accusation that there will be a cut is false. Give me your source that says benefits will be cut With privatized social security benefits will increase.

You still fail to acknowledge my point. Like you said, "It is like your borrowing from big brother fo $1000 is decreased to $800." But that $200 loss is a paycut to those who are dependant. A big one considering people who have a adjusted to having that cash to pay bills don't have that any more. Do you know what it is like to get fired or lose money and not have money for bills? If you have ever been in that situation I would consider it a crisis.

I gave you a reply now tell me (As you ignored this once) where will we get the trillions of dollars this 'switch' requires?

You havn't proved this would cost trillions. All you did was post a link to a left wing website and told me to find it myself. No article tha I have read has touched on the transition costing trillions.

Read the article, it says there will be a crisis in 2009; this is completely false as I pointed out. 09' being only 4 years away it would affect our elderly.

Actually it said the crisis would start in 2009 but would not be considered crisis-like until 203X

 

[No Limit]

But who gave Clinton that surplus? You seem to forget it was the republican controlled congress.

Strange, because as soon as Bush stepped in to office everything seemed to go to hell which is odd since Republicans had even more control then. Also, you seem to forget that Bush gave all the rich a nice tax cut as soon as he got in to office.

Your accusation that there will be a cut is false. Give me your source that says benefits will be cut With privatized social security benefits will increase.

You seem so sure. Like I said, without even looking anything up I know of one cut off the top of my head that I already pointed out eariler with beneifts not going to the family when that person dies.

You still fail to acknowledge my point. Like you said, "It is like your borrowing from big brother fo $1000 is decreased to $800." But that $200 loss is a paycut to those who are dependant. A big one considering people who have a adjusted to having that cash to pay bills don't have that any more. Do you know what it is like to get fired or lose money and not have money for bills? If you have ever been in that situation I would consider it a crisis.

Do you even know what I am talking about? I am talking about government lending money from our social security and not paying it back. Then suddenly when the surplus (that was designed to protect social security, not lend to government) isn't there to bail the government out because of the large tax cuts to large corporations so that surplus suddenly becomes a crisis even if the money is there to pay for the social security.

You havn't proved this would cost trillions. All you did was post a link to a left wing website and told me to find it myself. No article tha I have read has touched on the transition costing trillions.

So you are denying it will cost trillions? Ok, I will find a source later so you can put your foot in your mouth. One thing you will find out about me is when I say something I don't pull it out of my ass, I simply don't have time sometimes to go hunting for a source.

Actually it said the crisis would start in 2009 but would not be considered crisis-like until 203X

I'll comment on this later, I have to get back to work.

 

[firemachine69]

Simple fix. Limit the amount the baby boomers get to pull out of it. Make it their own dam fault for not saving up. Sheesh, not that hard.

I don't see why my generation should have to pay for the dumbasses of yesterday...

 

[No Limit]

Simple fix. Limit the amount the baby boomers get to pull out of it. Make it their own dam fault for not saving up. Sheesh, not that hard.

I don't see why my generation should have to pay for the dumbasses of yesterday...

Those dumbasses you speak off paid just as much as you did in to social security. Thanks to our wonderful government that money is no longer there.

 

[No Limit]

Actually it said the crisis would start in 2009 but would not be considered crisis-like until 203X

What the hell does that mean? Oh there is a crisis but there really isn't. Scare tactict anyone? If anything he just contridicts himself there if he really means that.

Lets look at some quotes from him:

The leftist opponents of Social Security reform want you to believe there’s no “crisis,” and that whatever problems the system may have won’t materialize for more than 35 years.

Clearly he is saying that anyone that says there isn't a crisis yet is a crazy leftist.

It’s even funnier when you realize the objective fact is this: The Social Security crisis actually starts a lot sooner than advocates of reform are saying. The Social Security crisis begins to materialize in just 5 years.

Most observers point to 2018 as the earliest year for the Social Security crisis to begin. But that’s only the year the crisis will pass an especially attention-grabbing milestone.

He clearly says there the crisis will start sooner than 2018. And to call the situation in 2018 a crisis is crazy as I pointed out earlier, a true crisis won't start until about 50 years from now.

 

[No Limit]

Some sources for the $2 trillion figure:

http://seniorliving.miningco.com/od/lawpolitics/a/bushsocialsecur.htm

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20041221022209990001&_ccc=2&cid=946

But the lack of specifics on matters like what percentage of payroll tax would go to accounts, and what age group would see the change, opened Bush to charges that he was masking some of the hard choices ahead and trying to sidestep questions about how he could afford the transition. The cost of transition could be as much as $1 trillion.

Source: New York Times, p. A18 May 16, 2000

Now here is an interesting thing about how Bush works, it is dead on accurate (do you disagree?):

Create a sense of crisis (imaginary, if needed). Talk about worst case scenarios (e.g. weapons of mass destruction, nuclear bombs exploding, terrorist attacks, etc.)

Make it urgent so that no debate is needed. Debate is bad because it allows people an opportunity to understand pros and cons.

Just do it, regardless of the consequences. Whether it is hundreds of Americans dead in Iraq or Americans losing their retirement benefits, it is more important to push an agenda than to worry about American people.

 

[No Limit]

Let me just summarize my point to make this easier as we will continue to beat a dead horse if I don't. Lets just asssume that a crisis does exist. You admitted that it won't even start to be a problem for another 5 years. So tell me this, why do we have to fix it today? Why can't we have healthy debate over the pros and cons for the next year or 2. Spend those couple years to actually develop a good, bi-partisan plan. Do you disagree with this?

 

[Bodacious]

To quote from you source saying it is going to cost 2 trillion:

But that alone won't fix the problem and could require upfront costs of $1 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years.

Clinton Increased the national debt by that much in 6 years.

 

[Bodacious]

Strange, because as soon as Bush stepped in to office everything seemed to go to hell which is odd since Republicans had even more control then. Also, you seem to forget that Bush gave all the rich a nice tax cut as soon as he got in to office.

Yah, strange is the fact that you look past historical events and blame Bush for unforseeable events, such as the end result of the .com crash, 9/11, etc.

I don't know if you noticed as I pointed out earlier but the Bush tax cuts increased Tax revenues.

You seem so sure. Like I said, without even looking anything up I know of one cut off the top of my head that I already pointed out eariler with beneifts not going to the family when that person dies.

I remember you saying that but I can't find it, what post number was it.

Do you even know what I am talking about? I am talking about government lending money from our social security and not paying it back. Then suddenly when the surplus (that was designed to protect social security, not lend to government) isn't there to bail the government out because of the large tax cuts to large corporations so that surplus suddenly becomes a crisis even if the money is there to pay for the social security.

I guess not, I did get confused. However, I did reread and understand now. What is the counterpoint's point? Borrowing from the SS surplus is nothing new. When we can't borrow from it any more what are we going to do? Raise taxes?

So you are denying it will cost trillions? Ok, I will find a source later so you can put your foot in your mouth. One thing you will find out about me is when I say something I don't pull it out of my ass, I simply don't have time sometimes to go hunting for a source.

I'll comment on this later, I have to get back to work.

Thanks for the source. All it said is what I said above, 2 trillion over 10 years. Our GDP will increase by that amount easy, so I am not worried about it costing 2 trillion over a decade at all.

 

[Bodacious]

Let me just summarize my point to make this easier as we will continue to beat a dead horse if I don't. Lets just asssume that a crisis does exist. You admitted that it won't even start to be a problem for another 5 years. So tell me this, why do we have to fix it today? Why can't we have healthy debate over the pros and cons for the next year or 2. Spend those couple years to actually develop a good, bi-partisan plan. Do you disagree with this?

I am not arguing there shouldn't be healthy debate. Like Bush said in one of your sources:

"The temptation is going to be ... to get me to negotiate with myself in public. To say, you know, 'What's this mean, Mr. President? What's that mean?' I'm not going to do that," Bush said. "The law will be written in the halls of Congress. And I will negotiate with them, with the members of Congress."

The meat of my post is to point out democrat's hipocrisy; saying one thing in 98 and another today.