• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why are Libs/Dems Set Against Social Security Reform?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Look, this is just Bush doing to Social Security what he did with Iraq. Choose a goal then ignore all information that doesn't support it. I wonder how many news people Bush bought to push this loser.

There is no crisis. The only crisis will be the one that occurs when millions of baby boomers who were forced to pay into the SS system are told their promised benefit isn't there.

Eliminate the income cap on Social Security taxes. Problem solved.

 
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
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.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, many don't trust Bush based on past performance. WMD's? Oh yes! We know what and where they are!
John Ashcroft?
Patriot Act?
Gonzales?

This is what Bush has and is foisting on the public. Now he wants to screw with SS?

SS needs reforms, no doubt. But Bush will come up with a plan, people here will accept it no matter what it really turns out to be because they get to take away the "cornerstone" of the Democrats.

I don't trust Bush, and he has shown good reasons why I should not.
Click to expand...

And they have all been - what? Successful!
Click to expand...

So was Idi Amin
 
Originally posted by: MoFunk
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!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


Clinton's 1999 State of the union included this
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Clinton was wrong, and Bush is wrong. Bush is getting ripped because he's inventing a problem, as he did once before as I pointed out above.
 
Its no secret that the republicans have hated SS and medicare since it was started. Bush thinks he?d be the great republican GOD if he can actually arrange to kill SS. So He?ll try try try until he does. And us democrats are now spineless jelly fish-like creatures, so Bush will no doubt win out. BUT? do yourself a favor and look at SS reform over in the UK (England). They did exactly ?exactly? over there what Bush is going to do here. And it became a nightmare. Really! Just look into it! It pushed most ALL seniors into the poverty level. Fee?s alone cost each SS senior 30% of their SS check EACH MONTH!!!
So England had to begin a ?layer? of new SS laws to help all those thrown into poverty. Layer after layer was added, at a great expense. Now, their SS system is so bad off and so costly and so complicated that they dread ever going down that road. They admire ?our? SS system, and how simple and workable it is. Check it out, before Bush destroys out system, and before your parents end up having to move in with YOU!
 
Cato's Plan Would Restore Social Security Solvency
  • Michael Tanner, director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice, will explain his proposal to the Senate Finance Committee today. (10 a.m. EDT, 216 Hart Senate Office Bldg.)

Hearing on Social Security Showcases Partisan Divide
  • The director of the Project on Social Security Choice at the Cato Institute, Michael Tanner, said younger workers deserve the choice of staying in the existing system or switching to an account that could bring higher returns.

    "Don't stand in the doorway and say we know better what is right for every single worker," Mr. Tanner said.

The 6.2 Percent Solution: A Plan for Reforming Social Security
  • Under this proposal
  • Individuals would be allowed to divert their half (6.2 percentage points) of the payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Those who chose to do so would agree to forgo all future accrual of retirement benefits under the traditional Social Security system.
  • The remaining 6.2 percentage points of payroll taxes would be used to pay transition costs and to fund disability and survivors' benefits.
  • Workers who chose the individual account option would receive a "recognition bond" based on the accrued value of their lifetimeto- date benefits. Those bonds, redeemable at the worker's retirement, would be fully tradable in secondary markets.
  • Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue.
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
Cato's Plan Would Restore Social Security Solvency
  • Michael Tanner, director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice, will explain his proposal to the Senate Finance Committee today. (10 a.m. EDT, 216 Hart Senate Office Bldg.)

Hearing on Social Security Showcases Partisan Divide
  • The director of the Project on Social Security Choice at the Cato Institute, Michael Tanner, said younger workers deserve the choice of staying in the existing system or switching to an account that could bring higher returns.

    "Don't stand in the doorway and say we know better what is right for every single worker," Mr. Tanner said.

The 6.2 Percent Solution: A Plan for Reforming Social Security
  • Under this proposal
  • Individuals would be allowed to divert their half (6.2 percentage points) of the payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Those who chose to do so would agree to forgo all future accrual of retirement benefits under the traditional Social Security system.
  • The remaining 6.2 percentage points of payroll taxes would be used to pay transition costs and to fund disability and survivors' benefits.
  • Workers who chose the individual account option would receive a "recognition bond" based on the accrued value of their lifetimeto- date benefits. Those bonds, redeemable at the worker's retirement, would be fully tradable in secondary markets.
  • Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue.
Click to expand...

wouldn't that still involve the US taking on a huge amount of debt, though, as opposed to rolling back some tax cuts to support the solvency of SS?
 
There's really only one answer to SS solvency down the road, and that's to create budget surpluses today, right now, and on into the timeframe that the general fund will be required to begin paying back the SS trust. If the SS obligations were the only federal debt, the whole thing wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. It's really other debt, exploding under Republican stewardship, that threatens SS and the solvency of the govt itself.

Anything else is just smoke and mirrors. Bush and his advisors know it full well. Their plans are to split the people into two groups- those on private accounts, and those on the current system. This fatally weakens the current system, also provides a strong "us vs them" situation that can be exploited to sell out on the trust, cut benefits, end that most hated of all New Deal programs. In the meanwhile, of course, they'll continue to create massive deficits, financed in part from the trust, cut taxes for those at the top, and to shift the burden down the scale. Push it off on the states, whose tax structures are regressive. Bring in a national sales tax, and/or a VAT. Raise excise taxes. Raise "fees" for everything.

SS will become just another regressive tax, those who've paid the most into it for 45 years or so will get left high and dry. Those who've gained the most from current fiscal policy, the top .01%, will rule supreme over a third world backwater, which is the ultimate goal of Rightwing Ideology, like it or not...
 
President Bill Clinton made fixing the nation's retirement program a top priority of his second term.

At a forum in 1998 he said "It would be unconscionable if we failed to act."

He warned that it is better to "fix the roof when the sun is shining," and urged finding ways to allow poorer workers to build wealth so they could "own a share of our nation's prosperity."

One propsal from a Clinto appointed bipartisan commission was to allow workers to divert 5% of their payroll taxes to personal accounts.

I believe that it's 4% in Bush's plan.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
President Bill Clinton made fixing the nation's retirement program a top priority of his second term.

At a forum in 1998 he said "It would be unconscionable if we failed to act."

He warned that it is better to "fix the roof when the sun is shining," and urged finding ways to allow poorer workers to build wealth so they could "own a share of our nation's prosperity."

One propsal from a Clinto appointed bipartisan commission was to allow workers to divert 5% of their payroll taxes to personal accounts.

I believe that it's 4% in Bush's plan.
Click to expand...
Yeah but under Clinton we had a surplus. Under the Dub our deficit is growing at unprecedented rates. Who in their right mind would trust the Dub and his Spend Spend Republican Congress to fix SS?
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
So is there a problem with SS like Clinton stated or isn't there?

If there is, shouldn't we try to fix it?
Click to expand...
Definitely, with someone who has shown us the ability to deal with such situations. Unfortunately the Dub's record isn't one the would exude confidence in his ability to deal with such a task.

 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
So is there a problem with SS like Clinton stated or isn't there?

If there is, shouldn't we try to fix it?
Click to expand...

And how does private accounts fix SS. The problem with SS is that Money In will not equal Money out. There are two ways to fix the porblem increase Money IN or Decrease Money Out. Private accouts decrease money in how does that fix the problem
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
So is there a problem with SS like Clinton stated or isn't there?

If there is, shouldn't we try to fix it?
Click to expand...

absolutely.

if only our president was focused on fixing it instead of weaking it.
 
So where were Republicans when Clinton said all that about SS? Oh wait, they were too busy impeaching him. I guess they just won't take yes for an answer.
 
I guess I should thank the GOP house of representatives for impeaching Clinton and stopping him from implementing more of their favorite policies 🙂
Thank you Henry Hyde for killing SS privatization when it counted. Your country salutes you! 😀
 
The Cato Plan is not partisan, and least it's a plan, other than raising taxes.

Even a privatized plan is still meeting the original intent of making sure people have money after retirement. You'll still be taxed to create that savings. I'd be thrilled to be rid of the whole abortion of a program, but privatization is a helluva lot better than what we're stuck with now. BTW, WTF is the Democrat's plan anyway? 😕
 
Originally posted by: BBond

Eliminate the income cap on Social Security taxes. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
not really. a pay as you go system is doomed as long as the interest rate paid out is lower than the rate of workforce growth. the rate of workforce growth is constrained by population growth. and the US population isn't getting bigger at a rate that would even beat inflation.

a fully funded plan doesn't have this problem, however. a fully funded plan would be like taking money and putting it into your savings account. and everyone knows the magic of compound interest.
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
The Cato Plan is not partisan, and least it's a plan, other than raising taxes.

Even a privatized plan is still meeting the original intent of making sure people have money after retirement. You'll still be taxed to create that savings. I'd be thrilled to be rid of the whole abortion of a program, but privatization is a helluva lot better than what we're stuck with now. BTW, WTF is the Democrat's plan anyway? 😕
Click to expand...

How does that plan fix the up coming SS short fall.
 
Not really. A pay as you go system that lets the top wage earners off the hook is doomed.

It's about time the people who benefited the most from Bush's economic policies gave a little back, dont' you think?

If the FICA cap is removed until the system reaches parity the problem is solved.

And to answer the question from the OP,
Why are Libs/Dems Set Against Social Security Reform?
Click to expand...
, we're not against reform. We're against Bush's pseudo-reform which in reality is intended to destroy Social Security, not fix it.

 
Originally posted by: BBond
Not really. A pay as you go system that lets the top wage earners off the hook is doomed.

It's about time the people who benefited the most from Bush's economic policies gave a little back, dont' you think?

If the FICA cap is removed until the system reaches parity the problem is solved.

And to answer the question from the OP,
Why are Libs/Dems Set Against Social Security Reform?
Click to expand...
, we're not against reform. We're against Bush's pseudo-reform which in reality is intended to destroy Social Security, not fix it.
Click to expand...

If benifits are cut until the parity is reached the problem is solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top