We need to hand Bush his ASS on Social Security...

[JaneEyrez]

I am a 55-year-old woman, part of the obnoxious Baby Boomer crowd, and so retirement isn't a distant fantasy to me. I have been feeling for some time that those of us who oppose the First Crackhead in the White House need to chose one big issue to oppose him on, something that we can get support from both the right and the left. Social Security is that issue.

As far as I am concerned, and I would think most Americans, Social Security is a promise that was made to us long ago by our government. We would not have meekly submitted to having it subtracted from our salaries if we had had a glimmer of belief that down the line it would be taken from us. I can't help but believe that one of the reasons they're running this deficit up so high is to have a legitimate (in their minds) excuse for not having the money to fulfil that social contract that the government made with us, the taxpayers.

Therefore, I am for a movement whose SOLE issue is the preservation of Social Security in the form that it was established. For one reason, how can anybody believe that individuals, even the smartest ones, can hold privatized Social Security accounts and be reasonably sure of ending up with a retirement income? They would have to invest it in the same venues that we have now and having lived through a few stock market "corrections" in my lifetime, I don't have a hell of a lot of confidence in stocks, and the current CD bank rates are a pathetic joke. So where are these individuals going to put their SS money that will be both safe and provide a decent return?

Secondly, as far as I know, an insurance company that wants to write annuity policies is required by law to put aside the money in a secure account that cannot be expended for other uses, so that the "contractual promise" can be fulfilled when the time comes. This is what poor wooden Al Gore was speaking of when he kept talking about a "lockbox" for Social Security. I just don't think people knew what the reference was to and why it was of concern. If Social Security had ever been, or would be now, placed aside from the rest of the federal treasury as the sacred trust that it should have been, there would be no reason to fear for a very long time.

Thirdly, what the heck is the reason to borrow two trillion dollars to fund this privatization? Well, I can only believe that's a boodle that they're hoping to steal for themselves at some future date.

In conclusion, I can think of no single issue on which we're likely to get more concern raised and people banding togething than to oppose this ridiculous scheme to privatize Social Security. A major defeat of this hateful scheme would be so satisfying for us and so humiliating for them... but, more importantly, it would achieve a political goal that serves to protect the future of millions of Americans. Not a bad deal, I don't think. Who's with me?

[InvisibleBallots]

1. I'm with you - it's one of our few winning issues

The vast majority of Americans support Social Security, despite the generation long campaign of lies against it. Democrats should never give into Republicans on privatizing/stealing Social Security.

Then again, we need to stand up to some factions in our own party to save SS as well.

[indepat]

7. The good news: whatever happens to social security, we the people endorsed

it by returning an incumbent to office whose wishes were known to all.

[halley]

2. I agree

I've already written AARP and my congressman about returning MY money so it won't get stolen. And every chance I get, I made sure
to voice my concern about this issue, esp with Repubs who don't like government handouts-it's OUR money.
If they do steal it, it needs to phrased for what it is-A BIG TAX INCREASE.

[tsuki]

6. Actually, for the past fifteen to twenty years, employers are

told to pay their FICA and MEDICARE tax. The government uses the word TAX.

[Telly Savalas]

8. Fortunately the AARP is already on board

According to this article, the AARP opposes Bush's plan. Given that they are one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country, this bodes well for our cause.

[Ira]

3. Strengthen Social Security

Bush is beating the drum to "reform" Social Security, using the emotion of fear to further his agenda. The word "reform" is Republican-speak for private accounts and reduced benefits. The system doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be strengthened, which can be easily done with a change in the funding formulas.

[area51]

30. Welcome.

Welcome to DU, Ira.

[elehhhhna]

4. BA changing budget rules so fuzzy math makes it palatable...

Social Security numbers game
GOP ponders 30-year scoring rather than 10
By Peter Savodnik
Republicans are pushing to rewrite budget rules in an attempt to remove financial obstacles that threaten the GOP’s effort to reform Social Security.

The potential move to craft budget language that would direct the Congressional Budget Office to score Social Security reform legislation over 30 or more years would likely increase the chances that the bill would pass in the 109th Congress.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/FrontPage/120804/socialsecurity.html

[whistle]

5. Agreed, but I have yet to find any detailed analysis from. . .

. . . and objective and reliable source which shows with facts and figures where the republican position that Social Security will be bankrupt in the next decade or so. As far as I can see Social Security is fully funded until 2050 which obviously accounts for the growth in retirees and the work force in the U.S. Does anyone have links to real data, not the fluff that republicans try to use in their propaganda?

[Telly Savalas]

9. Aw, you don't trust our buddies at the CATO institute...

Neither do I.

What puzzles me about all this is that the rest of the government is in worse financial shape than Social Security. A cursory glance at the budget defecit and national debt numbers confirms this. Why isn't the GOP proposing a plan for us to put our tax dollars into private accounts which will be cashed in 20 years later to pay for defence spending?

[whistle]

28. Exactly, war bonds, that would show who the true Americans. . .

. . . really are.

[blindpig]

10. if the Democratic Party bends over on this one............

then it is history, it will have shirked one of the last things that it stood for and should go the way of the Whigs.

[goodoptics]

29. Way of the Whigs

I'm 54 soon to be 55 and what gets me is Clinton had Social Security in the black and holding it's own. bush spends the money then tells us that the system is in trouble. reagan did the same thing. It's as if Wall Street is just begging them to spend it, then change it. So they can get their hands on it. When your stock are doing poorly(like they are now) That money just doesn't go up in smoke it goes into someones pocket. You are right if the DNC rolls over on this one they have been paid off and deserve to wither on the vine.

[genieroze]

11. I only know is that they have a whole bunch of MY money

and I want it back. They keep on saying how SS is an entitlement. Well, yes it is and we pay for it. They act like they are giving us something for nothing, they aren't! What do they think they can keep on taking SS out of our paychecks and keep it? They never should have been allowed to touch it. Johnson should have never allowed us to be able to borrow against it.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tracer]

15. Ironsides:

What's to stop you or your kids from investing their money right now? Gee, as far as I know, no one is stopping you or them from doing that.

I'm not familiar with Chile's plan, but I do know that Britain's plan is broke after only 20 years.

[Trailrider1951]

13. I'll tell you how to fix Social Security without privatizing it:

Just institute these two changes:
1. Make everyone who earns a salary pay into it. Right now, if you make more than $80,000 per year, whatever you make above that majic number is exempt. Get rid of that exemption.
2. Insitute a "needs" test for benefits, and a sliding scale. Ross Perot, Bill Gates, etc. will never need to collect Social Security. Don't give them a penny. Many non-millionairs who nonetheless have managed to save and invest a substantial sum, based on years of very lucrative employment should receive little or no benefits if they can finance their own retirement. If you have saved half a millon or more, do you really need that $1200 per month? Why not save it for the neediest among us?

Unfortunately, this will never fly, because it is pure socialism (of which I'm proud to espouse :evilgrin: ), and because of the real reason for privatization: All those "financial planners" see all that money being paid to the government, and they can't get their hands on it to make a profit. If everyone were forced to go to them for their future retirement funds, they could make a fortune. And, of course, just look who they bankroll come election time. Hint: it ain't the socialists among us.

[Blue Wally]

18. Needs Testing

"Needs Testing" would be the kisss of death for social security. Social Security enjoys the virtually unanimous consensus which it has in the US simply because it is universal. The minute it is needs tested, it becomes a welfare program.

[Yupster]

25. Your number one would work trailrider I think if

it also included bringing workers like schoolteachers in 12 states back into the system who are currently allowed to not be in social security.

I think your proposal could be passed if it included that addition.

That way Republicans would have to hit their rich constituents and Democrats would have to hit their constituents, teachers unions.

If each side took a hit, I think it would pass.

I don't think it would pass if you ask the majority party to stand up to their interest group, but the minority party is not willing to stand up to theirs.

[JaneEyrez]

14. Check out this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1428009

[grilled onions]

16. It's a matter of survival for many

This needs to be the number one issue in every senior center,group,website etc. We are fighting for the survival of those who have little savings thanks to the constant layoffs,tanked investments and pathetic wages we have had to endure. It's for future generations who will have to deal with even more of the same as more jobs get outsourced and remaining jobs keep going down in wages and with less benefits. If Social Security goes living under a viaduct will be by invitation only for many who have little else to live on thanks to the greedy wasteful idiots ruining this country.

[Cleita]

17. Social Security savings accounts are the first step in eliminating

Social Security altogether. The next step will be runaway inflation so that your savings will become worthless. We each need to adopt a baby boomer freeper and convince them that voting Republican will result in everything they ever worked for becoming worthless in the next decade if they keep these clowns in office. Also, we need to outlaw all electronic voting machines and insist on hand marked, hand counted ballots by both parties in the future.

[ThomasJackson]

19. SS is NOT an annuity

I hate it when people talk about SS like it was an annuity that the participants purchased. ( i particularly dislike when politicians imply that )

The fact is that the money paid in today is paid out today as benefits. The money withheld from my paycheck this month will go to my mother as part of her monthly SS check.

The first SS recipient was a woman from New England who received a total of about $22,000 dollars .... but had contributed less than $30 dollars. Her payments came from the SS taxes paid by those who were still working and contributing. The program is an "intergenerational transfer" to use the economist's term.

So when JaneEyrez notes that an insurance company wouldn't be allowed to operate like this she is quite right ..... but why the surprise? That's the way the program has been since it started!!!! The FDR administration went to the Supreme Court to OPPOSE the idea that any individual had any right to their own contributions and that their contributions be set aside and safeguarded.

So .... one may not like it, but that is the way the program was structured from the beginning. The SS Trust Fund is in name only. The whole idea of SS is predicated on the assumption of constantly growing populations. The BABY BUST has rained on the parade. Not enough new workers around to be taxed to pay out the benefits of the Baby Boom. hey ... it sucks ... but the demographics are what they are.

[JaneEyrez]

21. I clearly said it was not handled that way.

"If Social Security had ever been, or would be now, placed aside from the rest of the federal treasury as the sacred trust that it should have been, there would be no reason to fear for a very long time."

I was suggesting that it should have been so that we wouldn't have had this incessant wrangling over whether the surplus in SS could be used, for example, to hide the deficit or to fund other governmental programs. I was merely trying to point out that what the government requires of an insurance company should have been equally applicable to itself.

I also feel that because people work and live longer than they formerly did, this keeps Social Security solvent for a longer period of time. Plus, we have had a constantly escalating population because of the generations produced by the Baby Boomers, etc., and by the influx of immigrants from other places, who, if they are legal, are also paying into Social Security.

Anyway, let us not argue minutiae when your futures are at risk, unless you are not counting on Social Security at all.

[ThomasJackson]

22. population

actually, you're right, the population total is increasing ... but that takes into account the fact that people live longer. Overall, the number of people contributing to the system is growing less rapidly than the number of people receiving benfits.

In the begining there were 34 or 35 workers paying SS taxes for every person receiving benefits. It is less than half that now, and in 30 years or so is projected to be as low as 3 or 4 taxpayers per retiree.

And therin lies the problem. Again the program is structured so that every new generation pays the generation just retired. So...when the baby boom starts to retire, the country will be hard pressed to keep payong as promised. There are just not enough mew people to keep it going the same way as it did in the past.

[Yupster]

23. Also, the poeple who did qualify for the check

at age 65 maybe got it for an average 8-9 years. Now they get it for an average 18 years maybe.

The fact that we're living longer in retirement is a good thing of course, but it's a strain on the system.

[Gold Metal Flake]

20. We need to target the response.

First, who are the Democratic Senators and Representatives who are in support or are amenable to the **co SS scam? Thos in support need to be, uh, talked to. Those who oppose it must be given encouragement. Those on the fence need a reason to support our view. We need to have a list to work from.

Next comes a concerted effort to educate the media as to why the Dems are so opposed to this. But, first we must get the representatives in line so they have a united message when they open their faces in front of cameras and microphones.

Keep in mind that Clinton and Schumer supported Kerik. We can't expect our representatives to support our position on SS, we must FORCE them to support our position on SS.

[Yupster]

26. Should the Democratic congressmen have

an alternative reform plan?

I think privatization is a bad idea. The only way it can pass is if there is no alternative plan.

Even a bad plan will beat no plan at all.

[Gold Metal Flake]

27. Since there is nothing really wrong with SS, what would the plan be?

I understand what you are saying, but we have to be careful with a "response" plan, because in the past mainstream Dem response plans have been slightly diluted versions of repug plans. At any rate, if we garner the attention of our Dem reps in general, we can then dictate what alternative that might be needed.

[Yupster]

31. Some ideas for Democratic plan

1. Get rid of income cap and benefits cap.
2. Force teachers back into the system like everyone else.
3. Gradually raise the retirement age to 70.
4. Change cost of living formula to 1/4 % below cost of living.

Probably just one or at most two of those things would get social security back in actuarial balance again.

Also, any plan must protect the surplus from being spent which means getting it out of congress's reach. Invest the surplus in bank cd's, or some other investments outside of where congress can spend it. This is however not a long-term problem as there won't be any annual surplus in another 14 years anyway. That's when we'll start running in defecit and need the set aside surplus money that wasn't set aside.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

24. I agree