Should Dems negociate with GOP over SS private accounts?

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56464-2005Feb26.html?sub=AR


GOP May Seek a Deal on Accounts
Anxious Lawmakers Negotiate With Democrats on Social Security Changes
By John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 27, 2005; Page A01


<snip>As described in interviews, most of these compromises would involve Bush significantly scaling back his proposals for restructuring the popular benefits program. In exchange, he could still claim an incremental victory on what he has described as his core principles: enhancing the long-term solvency of Social Security and giving younger Americans options to invest more of their retirement money.

In one example, Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.) said, a compromise might involve merging Bush's proposal with plans -- some backed by Democrats -- that create government-subsidized savings plans outside Social Security. Under this scenario, Bush's proposal to divert 4 percent of an individual's Social Security payroll tax would become 2 percent or less.<snip>

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid has declared that Senate Democrats are united in their opposition to personal accounts carved out of Social Security. That is a deal-killer if true, since as a practical matter the most controversial ideas typically need a supermajority of 60 votes to end filibusters and allow a vote. Despite Reid's assertion, however, several moderate Democrats have not ruled out backing a more modest version of the president's plan.

Some of these centrists, such as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), have been meeting with Republican colleagues to discuss whether there is a middle ground.
<snip>

[Jim Sagle]

1. No.

[papau]

2. I like clear answers - :-)

:-)

[Yosie]

3. No way

Let them stew in their own juices --- the Demos should introduce their own bill --

"Add On" --- not "Carve Out" --- private accounts --- with a refundable tax credit to equalize the tax breaks across all income levels. Fund the refundable tax credit by reinstating the taxes on the wealthiest 2%.

Leave core SS alone -- "fix it" by busting the $90K cap.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Agree, 100%.

You can't compromise with these guys. We should know that by now. Look at the prescription package - enough compromised, based on assurances of its costs being X and when it shakes out, the costs are 2X which makes it not worth the cost. All it does is enrich the pharma companies, and costs to seniors are still going through the roof with the govt not allowed to negotiate for lower costs.

The one sure thing of the bush plan is that it will cost more than they suggest, and will result in the defunding of SS completely.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. Thats the only shot the little man has at a fair cut of the pie.

[charlyvi]

5. No.

Absolutely, unequivocally, NO!

[rfranklin]

6. Lieberman should drop dead....

What a totally useless POS.

[meti57b]

7. I'm sure we can work a deal: raise or eliminate the cap

on FICA contributions, create "add-on" 401k personal accounts, end the tax cuts for the wealthy and start paying off the deficit.

[papau]

13. From your post to God's ear - :-)

eliminate the cap is almost an exact offset to the supposed SS problem.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. We can't accept any of those ideas, if they are hinged on

cut outs from SS. The whole idea is to unfund the program, force its collapse.

If they want to give us those in addition to the current structure, fine. But they won't do it, they're not interested in it, because that would keep SS working, and that is not their goal.

[meti57b]

21. I said "add-on". That means in addition to Social Security.

[Technowitch]

8. No

And here's why: Negotiation and compromise have become the Repugs standard operating tactic to get their way.

You meet them halfway on something that ought not even be negotiated -- and they IMMEDIATELY move the goalposts. Then they demand you meet them halfway again. And again and again, until they've essentially gotten exactly what they wanted.

I'm sick and tired of negotiating with people who do so in bad-faith.

Leave SS alone. The only thing wrong with it is it doesn't do ENOUGH for our citizens.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Hell no.

This is the time to remember that every compromise that any Dem ever agreed to was sabotaged by Bush's lack of sincerity. If he agreed to pass legislation, he did so, and then failed to fund the programs. Therefore, agreements were never fully realized because of the duplicity.

[NMDemDist2]

10. no, we already have private retirement accounts. They are called IRAs n/t

[ezee]

11. HELL NO

[mikehiggins]

12. No. ANY compromise is a defeat.

I sometimes wish I could scream strings of curse words at people who even think of a scenario in which compromise with Bush is acceptable.

This guy has ALREADY MURDERED hundreds of thousands of people in pursuit of his lunatic policies. What part of that don't you people understand???

He is a liar who cannot be trusted any further than the rest of his administration can. Why do you find it hard to understand that?

As to the DemoWimps in the Beltway, anyone who compromises with this man between now and 2008 should be turned out of the party and targeted for defeat.

[MichiganVote]

14. Who will be the first or last SS recepient left behind? No compromise.

[kcass1954]

15. Clay Shaw has already flip-flopped on his stance on Social Security.

I have in my possession a full-color 4 page mailing entitled "Looking ahead to 2005: A Report from Congressman Clay Shaw", which I received in early January. Yes, I have the honor of living in this POS's district. On the 3rd page is a little blurb about Social Security, and I saved this mailing specifically because I knew he was blowing smoke up my skirt.



Strenghten and Protect Social Security

President Bush has said strengthening Social Security will be a top priority of his Administration in 2005. As a senior member of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, I am committed to strengthening and protecting Social Security.

I will fight for a plan to ensure Social Security meets the needs of today's workers while protecting current benefits--and does not touch one dime of the Social Security Trust Fund, does not cut any benefits for current retirees, does not privatize the program and does not raise taxes.

--Clay Shaw

[kcass1954]

16. To answer your question: NO!!!!!!!!

[pop goes the weasel]

17. "compromise" I'm willing to see

1. Social Security payroll tax extended to all income. Enough with the upper-end earners not contributing on 100% like the rest of us do.

2. Social Security extended to all part-time workers not otherwise covered by any other retirement plan. Enough with states and school districts balancing their budgets by turning full time jobs into 3 or 4 part-time jobs that don't qualify for retirement benefits.

[In Truth We Trust]

19. No......... and LIEberman can go fuck himself too......freaking DINO

[Inland]

22. First, see their plan. THEN say no.

They aren't going to offer anything except to take a hit for wanting tax hikes.