Why are Libs/Dems Set Against Social Security Reform?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: conjur
Read this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6903404


I'm not for the Bush plan, but I don't reject it just because it is the Bush plan. I'm not for it because I don't think the market is stable enough to use as a part of the plan and I don't think the plan will work. I distrust the Democratic criticism of the plan for some of the same reasons. The Democrats waxed pedantic about the many problems with SS during Clintons eight years of fantasy, but never came up with any solid plan that would save it. Bush does get credit for coming up with a plan that may work. Same thing with health care. Hilary spent who knows how much money when she was going to save health care for sure and only came up with ways to take the money out of another pocket. Not much of a plan! Basing an opinion on whether you like or dislike someone is not too clever. Sort of like the great Democratic campaign that was going to "Beat Bush". The whole basis was wrong to begin with and couldn't succeed. One has to separate ego from logic and found his/her thinking within the bounds of reality to accomplish anything.
:confused:

WTF did you read? You didn't read the article at the link I posted. If you did, you need to bone up on reading comprehension. The article discussed the problems with the plan, not attacking Bush because he's Bush.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
:confused:

WTF did you read? You didn't read the article at the link I posted. If you did, you need to bone up on reading comprehension. The article discussed the problems with the plan, not attacking Bush because he's Bush.

Don't you understand? Any criticism of Bush is only because we hate him, not because of his inherent poor planning or misplaced agenda.

There is no SS crisis. Eliminate the income cap on SS taxes until the system is stable. Problem solved.

The only reason Bush wants to reform SS is to get his hands on the surplus and the billions in fees his buddies will make from investing government guaranteed funds -- taxes which we now know won't belong to the people "investing" them under the Bush plan.

Another Bush lie. What a surprise. :roll:

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: Engineer
Sorry, it's 12.4 (6.2 with a match). The remaining is Medicare 1.45 x 2! ;)

True. FICA is composed of OASDI which is 12.4% and medicare which is 2.9%.
It feels so good to see almost $10,00 a year being sucked away, to give me $1,400 a month in 30 years!
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Funny how I have heard of this SS crisis for years! I remember Clinton talking about SS reform and the need to change, well he never did anything about it. Now Bush is doing something about it and everyone freaks out saying it is GW just trying to scres us all to help his oil buddies. Interesting thing is I see a trend, Clinton said we needed to do something about Saddam and his WMD's and was applauded, GW did something and is crucified.

I really do not give a crap either way, I know that the money I am paying into this system is not going to be there for my anyway so I look at this as just lost money. It is being used for other things so whatever. I still have my 401k, my IRA's, my money market and my savings. This will be there for me and my family.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: Engineer
Sorry, it's 12.4 (6.2 with a match). The remaining is Medicare 1.45 x 2! ;)

True. FICA is composed of OASDI which is 12.4% and medicare which is 2.9%.
It feels so good to see almost $10,00 a year being sucked away, to give me $1,400 a month in 30 years!

Well it is better then Bush plan pay in 10000 dollars get a deposit in your private account for 400 dollars. Now that is some return on an investment.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Funny how I have heard of this SS crisis for years!

Yes, we have heard about it for a long time. In fact, I remember that George Bush told us that social security would be bankrupt by 1988. Yes, he said it would fail by 1988 during his failed Congressional campaign in the 1970s.
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Funny how I have heard of this SS crisis for years!

Yes, we have heard about it for a long time. In fact, I remember that George Bush told us that social security would be bankrupt by 1988. Yes, he said it would fail by 1988 during his failed Congressional campaign in the 1970s.


Clinton's 1999 State of the union included this
Our fiscal discipline gives us an unsurpassed opportunity to address a remarkable new challenge, the aging of America. With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a senior boom.

So first and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century.

Early in this century, being old meant being poor. When President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt created Social Security, thousands wrote to thank him for eliminating what one woman called "the stark terror of penniless, helpless old age." Even today, without Social Security, half our nation's elderly would be forced into poverty.

Today, Social Security is strong, but by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. By 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older Americans have been promised.

The best way to keep Social Security a rock solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Funny how I have heard of this SS crisis for years!
Yes, we have heard about it for a long time. In fact, I remember that George Bush told us that social security would be bankrupt by 1988. Yes, he said it would fail by 1988 during his failed Congressional campaign in the 1970s.
Clinton's 1999 State of the union included this
Our fiscal discipline gives us an unsurpassed opportunity to address a remarkable new challenge, the aging of America. With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a senior boom.

So first and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century.

Early in this century, being old meant being poor. When President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt created Social Security, thousands wrote to thank him for eliminating what one woman called "the stark terror of penniless, helpless old age." Even today, without Social Security, half our nation's elderly would be forced into poverty.

Today, Social Security is strong, but by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. By 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older Americans have been promised.

The best way to keep Social Security a rock solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security.
Now the "exhaust" date is 2052.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: Engineer
Sorry, it's 12.4 (6.2 with a match). The remaining is Medicare 1.45 x 2! ;)

True. FICA is composed of OASDI which is 12.4% and medicare which is 2.9%.
It feels so good to see almost $10,00 a year being sucked away, to give me $1,400 a month in 30 years!

Well it is better then Bush plan pay in 10000 dollars get a deposit in your private account for 400 dollars. Now that is some return on an investment.

Although plan specifics haven't been released, the amount is 4% of your income, not 4% of your SS payroll tax, into an account with a $1,000 initial cap. The cap was reported to be raised $100 per year until the full 4% could be realized. Of course, it would take 10 years to get to $2,000 /year, 20 years to $3,000, 30 years to $4,000. Again, nothing set in stone, just reports that I've read.

Regardless, I can't see how personal accounts will "fix" the current situation on SS. It would seem that a removal of the CAP, increased taxes or reduced benefits (or combination of all) would still need to be done over the next few decades. As far as I'm concerned, borrowing the money is out of the question (debt sucks).

 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Funny how I have heard of this SS crisis for years!
Yes, we have heard about it for a long time. In fact, I remember that George Bush told us that social security would be bankrupt by 1988. Yes, he said it would fail by 1988 during his failed Congressional campaign in the 1970s.
Clinton's 1999 State of the union included this
Our fiscal discipline gives us an unsurpassed opportunity to address a remarkable new challenge, the aging of America. With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a senior boom.

So first and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century.

Early in this century, being old meant being poor. When President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt created Social Security, thousands wrote to thank him for eliminating what one woman called "the stark terror of penniless, helpless old age." Even today, without Social Security, half our nation's elderly would be forced into poverty.

Today, Social Security is strong, but by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. By 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older Americans have been promised.

The best way to keep Social Security a rock solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security.
Now the "exhaust" date is 2052.

Your right... man there is no problem. OK keep sucking money out of my account. Thanks for clearing that up.

But just for shits and giggles, let look into this some, it seems to be working very well in Texas http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P...5Carchive%5C200502%5CNAT20050203a.html
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
House GOP Shows Doubt in Bush Plan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60584-2005Feb3.html

Rep. James McCrery, chairman of the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee, outlined ideas similar to those supported by many Democrats and said he wants to discuss them with the Bush administration.....
It's not just the Democrats opposing the plan.

House republicans are trying to protect their asses because they are up for re-election in 06. They fear being voted out if they mess with SS.

And BTW this is the same guy that said Bushs plans are DOA, before even seeing them
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Funny how I have heard of this SS crisis for years!
Yes, we have heard about it for a long time. In fact, I remember that George Bush told us that social security would be bankrupt by 1988. Yes, he said it would fail by 1988 during his failed Congressional campaign in the 1970s.
Clinton's 1999 State of the union included this
Our fiscal discipline gives us an unsurpassed opportunity to address a remarkable new challenge, the aging of America. With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a senior boom.

So first and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century.

Early in this century, being old meant being poor. When President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt created Social Security, thousands wrote to thank him for eliminating what one woman called "the stark terror of penniless, helpless old age." Even today, without Social Security, half our nation's elderly would be forced into poverty.

Today, Social Security is strong, but by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. By 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older Americans have been promised.

The best way to keep Social Security a rock solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security.
Now the "exhaust" date is 2052.

Your right... man there is no problem. OK keep sucking money out of my account. Thanks for clearing that up.

But just for shits and giggles, let look into this some, it seems to be working very well in Texas http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P...5Carchive%5C200502%5CNAT20050203a.html
I didn't say SS didn't need to be fixed. It's just not a dire crisis as Bush is trying to depict. And, come 2052 it won't be bankrupt, it will just only be able to pay out about 75% of benefits. Repeal the tax cut for the wealthy and problem solved.

BTW, a bit about Galveston:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:vJ...95+harvey+bazaman+alternate+plan&hl=en
Included in Burks? recent allegation was the claim that the commissioners court misused a $2.4 million windfall the county received from its former insurance company.

County leaders used the money to raise the county?s contribution to the retirement accounts of employees.

Representatives of the retirement plan and the private company that administers the county?s alternate plan to social security, addressing the issue after Burks first made the allegation months ago, said the commissioners court not only acted properly, but admirably in light of the fact it was under no obligation to plow the money back into benefits.
Might have had a bit to do with that


This seems to be a detailed review of it:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6524/is_1_62/ai_55450618
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Funny how I have heard of this SS crisis for years!
Yes, we have heard about it for a long time. In fact, I remember that George Bush told us that social security would be bankrupt by 1988. Yes, he said it would fail by 1988 during his failed Congressional campaign in the 1970s.
Clinton's 1999 State of the union included this
Our fiscal discipline gives us an unsurpassed opportunity to address a remarkable new challenge, the aging of America. With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a senior boom.

So first and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century.

Early in this century, being old meant being poor. When President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt created Social Security, thousands wrote to thank him for eliminating what one woman called "the stark terror of penniless, helpless old age." Even today, without Social Security, half our nation's elderly would be forced into poverty.

Today, Social Security is strong, but by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. By 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older Americans have been promised.

The best way to keep Social Security a rock solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security.
Now the "exhaust" date is 2052.

Thats just untrue. Its 2032-2052, depending on how the economy goes. 2032 is the worst case scenario, 2052 is the best case, most say 2042 because its the avg of the two.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Thats just untrue. Its 2032-2052, depending on how the economy goes. 2032 is the worst case scenario, 2052 is the best case, most say 2042 because its the avg of the two.
That's just untrue.

2052 is the CBO estimate. That's when benefits go to 78%. Also, the CBO pushed the estimate of benefits outstripping expenditures to 2020, from 2018.
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Thats just untrue. Its 2032-2052, depending on how the economy goes. 2032 is the worst case scenario, 2052 is the best case, most say 2042 because its the avg of the two.
That's just untrue.

2052 is the CBO estimate. That's when benefits go to 78%. Also, the CBO pushed the estimate of benefits outstripping expenditures to 2020, from 2018.


I do not really care if SS is going bankrupt or not, I would rather have the say in my own retirement account. I would also rather have the money I contribute to be passed down to my kids if I die before retirement. If I die at age 60 that money goes away. Also I have a hard time thinking that getting 78% is nothing to worry about.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Thats just untrue. Its 2032-2052, depending on how the economy goes. 2032 is the worst case scenario, 2052 is the best case, most say 2042 because its the avg of the two.
That's just untrue.

2052 is the CBO estimate. That's when benefits go to 78%. Also, the CBO pushed the estimate of benefits outstripping expenditures to 2020, from 2018.
I do not really care if SS is going bankrupt or not, I would rather have the say in my own retirement account. I would also rather have the money I contribute to be passed down to my kids if I die before retirement. If I die at age 60 that money goes away. Also I have a hard time thinking that getting 78% is nothing to worry about.
Might want to read this
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
I love the key words in there.....
certain family members may be eligible
So if I die I can't leave this money for my child to use to say help with college if she is over 19....
Unmarried children under 18, or up to age 19 if they are attending elementary or secondary school full time. A child can receive benefits at any age if he or she was disabled before age 22 and remains disabled. Under certain circumstances, benefits can also be paid to stepchildren, grandchildren, or adopted children.
That is nice that the money will go to my spouse, but what if we both die, who does that money go to?

Also in the case my my wife and I. If we both have a private account, and one of us dies, we get both accounts. Under the current SS system....
However, they will not be paid both benefits - they will be paid the higher of the two benefits


 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Funny how I have heard of this SS crisis for years!

Yes, we have heard about it for a long time. In fact, I remember that George Bush told us that social security would be bankrupt by 1988. Yes, he said it would fail by 1988 during his failed Congressional campaign in the 1970s.


Clinton's 1999 State of the union included this

Um, do you have a point?

We're talking about Bush's plan, and it's a relevant fact that he's been wrong about an alleged social security crisis in the past, and that he's attempted to use fear about a non-existent crisis in an attempt to gain political power. Clinton's got nothing to do with it.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
It's OK to raise taxes more, after all, tax increases are always long term solutions to the problems...

Ask the Northern Europeans about this, with their 90% effective tax rates. At some point, the government gets all of your money - at that point you no longer matter, you are simply a money making machine for them with little personal choice or freedom

Democrats like SS because it keeps people relatively poor, and in their corner. Personal accounts are known to work, they have worked in evry single situation in which they are used. Congress gets them, Federal employees get them, a Texas County managed to get them and opt out of SS in 1980, and Chile has them - they are all successes. To the morons here who think that the market is a gamble, well, you are asking to be poor you entire life - you also show you have no financial knowledge. Yes there is risk, yet there has never been a single negative ten year period. Gamble is something with overwhelming odds against (think blackjack), a calculated risk is one that pays more for more risk. YOU WILL NOT BE FORCED TO INVEST ONLY IN STOCKS. I get sick of every liberal I hear because they spew these idiotic assumptions about investment. What scares me is that most of them are young, and obviously stupid - I fear for their futures in the real world. There are many very low risk (lower returns however) investments out there that can beat the loser known as SS - hell, a SAVINGS ACCOUNT makes MORE money at less risk than the SS program.

Quit being so stupid. Quit making these stupid assumptions. Quit trying to argue that there is not a problem. Five years ago, your leadership was talking about the same problems. I suspect that the fact that economists have been talking about this for thirty years, there is a real problem. I also grow weary of all of these new reports and numbers that try to tell me that practically every major economist over the last three decades have been wrong.
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Funny how I have heard of this SS crisis for years!

Yes, we have heard about it for a long time. In fact, I remember that George Bush told us that social security would be bankrupt by 1988. Yes, he said it would fail by 1988 during his failed Congressional campaign in the 1970s.


Clinton's 1999 State of the union included this

Um, do you have a point?

We're talking about Bush's plan, and it's a relevant fact that he's been wrong about an alleged social security crisis in the past, and that he's attempted to use fear about a non-existent crisis in an attempt to gain political power. Clinton's got nothing to do with it.


Yes the point is that Clinton stated there was a problem and did nothing to pursue a fix, Bush states there is a problem and works to a solution and he gets ripped. It gets chalked up as fear mongering. Don't be afraid, be smart. I would rather have the CHOICE of where my money goes. I thought democrats were PRO-CHOICE. I pay enough in taxes, let me keep the money that is supposed to be for retirement.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
It hurts to admit it, but maybe you weren't BBing on that one and actually on this entire thread. It was a critical and fair article. I still think at heart you were looking for negatives to a Bush plan, not just to a plan.
 

gutharius

Golden Member
May 26, 2004
1,965
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
it is simple. Social security is the cornerstone of the new deal. If the republicans are successful in its reform, it will not longer be the baby of the democrats. SS bought democrats power for over 50 years.

This is irrelevant as too many americans rely on this for their daily living needs. Tampering with SS at this stage in the game is not the thing to do. The right thing is to simply stop congress from raiding the SS trust fund when ever it feels like it. Recent estimates, that I have heard, place the amount of monies owed to SS by the government put it at 1.2 Trillion dollars. If we had prevented SS from being raided in the first place this whole discussion would be moot in the first place.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: charrison
it is simple. Social security is the cornerstone of the new deal. If the republicans are successful in its reform, it will not longer be the baby of the democrats. SS bought democrats power for over 50 years.

This is irrelevant as too many americans rely on this for their daily living needs. Tampering with SS at this stage in the game is not the thing to do. The right thing is to simply stop congress from raiding the SS trust fund when ever it feels like it. Recent estimates, that I have heard, place the amount of monies owed to SS by the government put it at 1.2 Trillion dollars. If we had prevented SS from being raided in the first place this whole discussion would be moot in the first place.

But the trust fund is was raid. Not to mention the goverment really should try and avoid holding assest. So unless you have a time machine to go back 50 years to keep the bady boomers from raid their retirment account then I suggest you come up with another fix.