Here's to working together in 05!!

[bigsixfive 328]

link

WASHINGTON — With President Bush planning high-profile initiatives in his second term like Social Security (search) reform, Democrat leaders are digging in, vowing to stop the Bush agenda dead in its tracks.

"We, as Democrats, have got to stand up and fight aggressively from day one," said outgoing national party chairman Terry McAuliffe, who has been asked by some Democratic lawmakers to retain his position as head of the Democratic National Committee (search).

Hoping to re-energize a party demoralized by Sen. John Kerry's defeat in the 2004 presidential election, Democrats plan confrontation, McAuliffe said.

"We disagree with George Bush. Fifty-six million people came out and voted for John Kerry to defeat George Bush. Those 56 million people are counting on those Democrats to get in there and fight for them," he said.

Even the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (search), which prefers bipartisan results over gridlock, backs a stonewall strategy. Co-founder Will Marshall told FOX News that Democrats distrust the president and are unlikely to budge on major initiatives, particularly Social Security.

"Many Democrats are very skeptical about entering into any kind of negotiation with President Bush on Social Security, which, after all, is the crown jewel of Democratic programs," Marshall said.

[Auburn85 432]

What's the Democrats answer to saving Social Security?

[TexasTiger 13,024]

What's the Democrats answer to saving Social Security?

138196[/snapback]

What's Bush's?

Social Security Dodge

Sunday, December 19, 2004; Page B06

"THE CRISIS IS NOW," President Bush declared of Social Security at the economic conference called by the White House last week. The president's language may have been a bit hyperbolic -- the funding shortfall in Social Security is big but not insurmountable, and in any event Medicare is a far more daunting problem -- but his fundamental point is sound. However dire your view of the Social Security situation, it's far better to deal with the problem now than wait until it's bigger and therefore more difficult to address.

But whatever credit the president deserves for calling on Congress and the country to deal with Social Security, he loses with his breezily dishonest suggestion that private accounts provide a painless, magic-wand solution to the program's woes. At the economic conference, Mr. Bush restated his gauzy "principles" for Social Security reform: Those at or near retirement age won't see their benefits cut, payroll taxes won't be raised and younger workers should be allowed to put some of their payroll taxes into private accounts. Protecting current beneficiaries is only fair. But the president's second two principles are less useful guideposts than irresponsible evasions of the hard choices facing those who would solve the funding problem of Social Security.

There are many potential benefits to private accounts, but Mr. Bush characteristically peddles them as an all-dessert, no-spinach Social Security panacea. How, exactly, would private accounts "solve" the Social Security funding problem? Mr. Bush doesn't say, and for good reason: In and of themselves, they don't -- and indeed, they could actually make matters worse. As a way to address the Social Security funding gap, private accounts make sense not least because they offer a wedge for other benefit cuts. For example, the leading private-account proposal of Mr. Bush's Social Security commission requires deep reductions in guaranteed benefits. As Comptroller General David M. Walker, the head of the Government Accountability Office, put it in a speech last week: "The creation of private accounts for Social Security will not deal with the solvency and sustainability of the Social Security fund." Mr. Bush somehow omitted this unpleasant fact in his discussion.

Mr. Bush's move to put payroll tax increases off the table is emblematic of his allergy to tax increases for any reason, but it is ill-advised -- particularly if he means to rule out any hike in the payroll tax ceiling, the maximum amount of income on which workers must pay Social Security tax. The payroll tax is regressive, and raising the ceiling would call for additional contributions to Social Security from those who could better afford it -- and who reaped the biggest benefit from Mr. Bush's income tax cuts. Some proponents of private accounts, like Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), have proposed raising the payroll tax ceiling; Mr. Graham says it would be "irresponsible" not to do so.

An honest discussion of the predicament of Social Security, the range of potential solutions, and the relative risks and benefits of private accounts would have been a service to the country. That such a debate didn't take place at last week's stage-managed economic conference is not terribly surprising, but it's nonetheless disappointing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec18.html

[Auburn85 432]

Listen, I wasn't trying to be a smart alek, I was really wondering cause I don't know what the Democrats idea is.

[TexasTiger 13,024]

Listen, I wasn't trying to be a smart alek, I was really wondering cause I don't know what the Democrats idea is.

138258[/snapback]

I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck toward you, either. I was questioning the premise of the original post. The original post attempts to show the Dems are just being obstructionist by not agreeing to Bush's "plan." In reality, Bush has refused to give details about his "plan." There is no written proposal to even review. Instead, he hints of catostrophic consequences if we don't do something drastically different from before in regard to a situation for which real threats are not imminent. What does the framework of this sell-job remind you of?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Actually, Bush HAS a plan, and it's very feasible. The problem is that the Dems DON'T have a plan, so politically they are forced to ridicule the Bush plan by any means possible. Notice the tone of how TexasTiger replies to the simple yet important question.

Q: What is the Dems plan ?

A: BUSH PLAN DISHONEST! IT WON'T WORK!

again....

Q: What is the Dem's plan?

A: "...he hints of catostrophic consequences if we don't do something drastically different from before in regard to a situation for which real threats are not imminent. What does the framework of this sell-job remind you of? "

See? Now he's trying to set up a pattern based on a bogus comparison between Iraq and SS. The Iraq threat was real, but because it wasn't exactly as some had perceived it to be, the Left has tried to promote it as false. It wasn't false, and neither is the very real crisis of Social Security. If anything, the Left should be happy that Bush is looking out for and paying attention to the needs of the people here. It seems, however, that the only reason the Dems are against Bush's plan is because they're not in power and won't get the political clout for taking on such a volitale issue. Once again...as we saw w/ Iraq, the Dems are all about what THEY can do for you, and not what's in everyone's best interest.

[Auburn85 432]

Usually what previous administrations do, including this one, would take money out of the SS budget and would use it for government spending.

This should be stopped.

For all we know, the money taken out of of our checks toward SS is going to pay for school grants, disaster relief, or the raise that Congress gave themselves a couple of years ago.

[TexasTiger 13,024]

Actually, Bush HAS a plan, and it's very feasible.

138281[/snapback]

Please provide a link to the details of Bush's proposal. I can't find it on the White House website, but obviously, you've read it and know where it is. Please share. I'll be happy to review the details and comment.

[Auburn85 432]

You haven't heard him talk about privatizing SS into personal accounts?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Details to come later, but the general outline is to allow people to keep some of their own $ and invest it...if they so desire.

Again, what do the Dems have to offer?

a ) Raise taxes ?

b ) Cut benefits ?

c ) A combo of a) + b )

d ) Hope the SSI fairy will come in the wee hours of the night and make everything all magically better ?

At least Bush is putting something on the table and forcing the issue to be discussed.

[Piglet 0]

Apparently, anyone's income after $87,000 isn't now being subject to Social Security taxes. How lame is that? Why are we letting the richest Americans not pay Social Security taxes while struggling families pay on every dollar they earn?

If they taxed all income equally, the system would be solvent. So there's an alternative plan for you.

Too bad it isn't the Democrats' plan. My money says they plan to bicker and dither a bit and then roll over and give Bush whatever he wants again, and then wonder why people aren't lining up to vote for their stunning leadership.

[Auburn85 432]

Why should people making a 6 figure salary get Social Security?

On a side note, I do not agree with a National Sales Tax.

What I votedf for Bush and I disagree with him?!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Apparently, anyone's income after $87,000 isn't now being subject to Social Security taxes.  How lame is that?  Why are we letting the richest Americans not pay Social Security taxes while struggling families pay on every dollar they earn?

If they taxed all income equally, the system would be solvent.  So there's an alternative plan for you.

Too bad it isn't the Democrats' plan. My money says they plan to bicker and dither a bit and then roll over and give Bush whatever he wants again, and then wonder why people aren't lining up to vote for their stunning leadership.

138363[/snapback]

How is that lame ? The richest ARE paying S.S. taxes, but only up to a point. Why should anyone making more be forced to pay for those who make less ? That is socialism, plain and simple.

Also, I wonder as to why you phrase your question in the manner which you did.

" ..while struggling families pay on every dollar they earn ? "

First of all, whose decission was it for them to even have a family in the 1st place ? Life is about choices, and there are plenty who have made the right choices which allow the to have families w/ out 'struggling' , as you put it. Others might not have families, for what ever reason....yet if they're making enough $$ on their own, should THEY be forced to pay for eveyone else ?

The answer to that is no , btw.

[Auburn85 432]

Some Dems want a socialist society. They won't say it out loud, but you can see it in their policies?

For example: Kerry wanted Health care for every American

[TexasTiger 13,024]

Details to come later, but the general  outline is to allow people to keep some of their own $ and invest it...if they so desire.

138302[/snapback]

Three little words that make any intelligent person wary: "Details to follow."

[TexasTiger 13,024]

You haven't heard him talk about privatizing SS into personal accounts?

138300[/snapback]

Sure, but that's an idea, not a plan. A plan accurately defines the problem and outlines a proposal to solve it. He has done neither.

[TexasTiger 13,024]

The Iraq threat was real...

138281[/snapback]

Not according to Bush's two WMD investigators. None for at least 10 years.

[TexasTiger 13,024]

Usually what previous administrations do, including this one, would take money out of the SS budget and would use it for government spending.

This should be stopped.

For all  we know, the money taken out of of our checks toward SS is going to pay for school grants, disaster relief, or the raise that Congress gave themselves a couple of years ago.

138283[/snapback]

It sounded silly when he said it so much (and SNL mocked him saying it), but Gore wanted to put the SS surplus in a "lockbox". Many Dems wanted to use then budget surplus to make SS viable beyond the point it is now (which is still years away.) No lockbox, and now, no surplus.

[Auburn85 432]

I didn't think it was A SS surplus, it was a budget surplus of the general fund.

It could have been used for SS.

What's the difference between a lockbox and a bank account.

A lock box doesn't draw interest

But I'm hearing that some ofthe money may be used for investments in the stock market, which may succeed or fail. If it's left to the government, it will just dwindle away and the government will be needing more money.

Didn't Clinton raise SS taxes? If so, I can see how cutting benefits would lead to more SS

Also, the majority of the Baby Boomers are now retiring

[TexasTiger 13,024]

Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado has an interesting approach to the Social Security and the Trust Fund.

He says that the US government will simply go into default and never pay the money back.

You'd think that would make some news.

From today's Greeley Tribune ...

<i>"I believe we have a problem with Social Security that will emerge in 2018," he said. "At that point in time, Social Security pay out will be more than what is in the fund put in by working people or employers."

Allard said there are no reserves in Social Security because what is there is automatically transferred into the general fund, leaving a debt of $28 trillion. But he doesn't believe the money will ever be repaid to the fund.

"The money is spent," he said. "I don't believe in my own opinion we'll be able to raise the funds to pay it back."</i>

Do other Republicans think default is the solution? Does the president?

And since the portion of our national debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund makes up (I believe) less than a third of our total debt, are we going to default on the rest of those bonds too?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_09.php#004429

At least with a "lockbox" you don't raid the cookie jar like these irresponsible b*****ds.

[Auburn85 432]

But isn't privatizing SS keep it from going to the general fund?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Details to come later, but the general  outline is to allow people to keep some of their own $ and invest it...if they so desire.

138302[/snapback]

Three little words that make any intelligent person wary: "Details to follow."

138479[/snapback]

Well, at least Bush has an outline and a direction in which to flesh out the finer points. Anyone who follows what goes on in D.C. should know that bills ALWAYS go through an evolutionary process before they reach their final draft. So, constantly muttering about the 'details' not being made public when it's the Dems who have absolutely NOTHING to show is being utterly disingenious at best.

[TexasTiger 13,024]

Details to come later, but the general  outline is to allow people to keep some of their own $ and invest it...if they so desire.

138302[/snapback]

Three little words that make any intelligent person wary: "Details to follow."

138479[/snapback]

Well, at least Bush has an outline and a direction in which to flesh out the finer points. Anyone who follows what goes on in D.C. should know that bills ALWAYS go through an evolutionary process before they reach their final draft. So, constantly muttering about the 'details' not being made public when it's the Dems who have absolutely NOTHING to show is being utterly disingenious at best.

138553[/snapback]

Got a link to the "outline?" Yes, bills go through a process. Yes, legislation changes. Where's the draft of the initial legislation? Where is the white paper that may precede the actual first draft? There is nothing but an idea-- let's privatize a portion of social security. Okay, tell me more if you want "support" for the "plan."

[AURaptor 1,126]

Details to come later, but the general  outline is to allow people to keep some of their own $ and invest it...if they so desire.

138302[/snapback]

Three little words that make any intelligent person wary: "Details to follow."

138479[/snapback]

Well, at least Bush has an outline and a direction in which to flesh out the finer points. Anyone who follows what goes on in D.C. should know that bills ALWAYS go through an evolutionary process before they reach their final draft. So, constantly muttering about the 'details' not being made public when it's the Dems who have absolutely NOTHING to show is being utterly disingenious at best.

138553[/snapback]

Got a link to the "outline?" Yes, bills go through a process. Yes, legislation changes. Where's the draft of the initial legislation? Where is the white paper that may precede the actual first draft? There is nothing but an idea-- let's privatize a portion of social security. Okay, tell me more if you want "support" for the "plan."

138555[/snapback]

Texas. if you really care about this so much, go look for it yourself . Try the W.H. home page. And while you're at it, try to track down that Dem plan too. I'm DYING to hear all about their great idea.

[LegalEagle 22]

Well, balancing the budget and paying off the national debt would sure put us in a better position to address any exigent short fall in SS.

We already have a form of privatization. We have several forms of retirement accounts available. We can put money above what we owe to SS in IRAs, either tax deferred or not. Should we all take advantage of this opportunity and the stock market do well, then none of the youngsters of today would have any great need for their SS pennies.

However, if you eliminate SS and replace it w/ privatization, what do you think this country will do when many invest in the wrong "horse" and wind up broke and on the street? Simply, we will then put them on welfare and support them with taxpayer dollars. We merely need to encourage our citizens to utilize the retirement plans now available and keep SS functioning.