Why are our Democrats joining with right wing groups and Republicans on Social Security?

[madfloridian]

PPI's Tom Carper joins with Lindsey Graham to fix Social Security.What kind of hell of a combination is that? Don't we have enough Democrats who can band together to solve our problems?


The Progressive Policy Institute, The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, The Heritage Foundation, and The New America Foundation co-hosted this policy forum

This is how they talked about Social Security. I won't even ask why they are working with Lindsey Graham and other Republicans instead of working with progressive groups.

“Everybody’s living like a senator . . . forever,” Graham said at a meeting on the U.S. fiscal crisis

So he recommends they raise the age to fix Social Security. I think it is 67 right now, isn't it?

The age for qualifying for Social Security benefits may need to be raised to reflect longer American life spans, Sens. Thomas R. Carper D-Del., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said at a meeting yesterday on the federal budget. When Social Security was created in 1935, a 65-year-old could expect to live another 12.5 years. Today’s 65-year-olds often have another 17.5 years left, according to Social Security’s Web site. Some Americans will go on for years way beyond that projection, said Graham, whose predecessor, Strom Thurmond, died in 2003 at 100.

“Everybody’s living like a senator . . . forever,” Graham said at a meeting on the U.S. fiscal crisis, sponsored by the nonprofit policy groups, including the conservative Heritage Foundation, and liberal Progressive Policy Institute. “That’s good news.”

The bad news is that Congress needs to take a hard look at Social Security and figure out how to accommodate an increasingly healthy crop of older Americans, without putting excess burdens on younger citizens, the senators and other panelist said. Carper and Graham each cited the work that then-President Ronald Reagan and then-Speaker Tip O’Neill did together in the 1980s to stave off a Social Security crisis as a model for further reform efforts. Democrats and Republicans will need to cooperate again to tackle Social Security, and they will need to make tough choices, the two senators said. Reagan and O’Neill “told their bases things that they didn’t want to hear,” Graham said, adding that that kind of candor will be needed again.

Reagan...isn't he the one who said the worst words were " I am from the government, and I'm here to help you"? That Reagan?

Reagan, who had very bad thoughts about Social Security:

Wanted to privatize retirement, but never had opportunity

Social Security was always more tar baby than Teflon for Reagan. He told me when he was governor of California that Barry Goldwater’s campaign had demonstrated that Republicans could not safely discuss the issue, but Reagan could not stop talking about it. I have no doubt that he shared the view that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme. He was intrigued with the idea of a voluntary plan that would have allowed workers to make their own investments. This idea would have undermined the system by depriving Social Security of the contributions of millions of the nation’s highest-paid workers. In 1976 he said that Social Security “could have made a provision for those who could do better on their own” and suggested that such recipients be allowed to leave the program upon showing that “they had made provisions for their non-earning years.” This declaration sent shudders through the ranks of Reagan’s political advisers, who knew his true feelings about Social Security.“
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 243 Jul 2, 1991

Oh, that sounds just like the personal accounts, private accounts...American Dream accounts. But if I say they will undermine Social Security, the wolf pack jumps me. Of course it will undermine it. It is meant to do so.

Didn't we spend the year before we got the majority in Congress last year saying that Social Security was fine and didn't need fixing? I thought so. But now that we are elected, we are going to join with of all people, Lindsey Graham, and of all groups..the Heritage Foundation....to fix what we said wasn't broken.

I remember a figure Lindsey Graham once quoted about where he would draw the line for change. It stuck with me because of the way he talked about $30,000 as though it were a income that was sufficient.

Increases in Social Security's retirement benefits, meanwhile, have long been tied to wages, which rise faster than prices. Graham would leave that system intact for people earning less than $30,000 a year. Higher-income retirees would have growth in benefits tied to inflation, which would shrink senior citizens' checks by billions of dollars.

Bound to irk all sides

My head is spinning. In what world is $30,000 a dividing line between lower and upper income?

To add to the confusion, Hillary says it isn't broken, and she doesn't want to talk about it....and then puts out a policy paper at the DLC, partner to the PPI, called the American Dream Initiative which says it needs fixing.



American Dream Initiative ready for download from DLC

An aging society has no choice but to act. Just as FDR ushered in the Social Security system in the last century, we need to make new provisions for economic security in this one. That means asking every employer to give workers the chance to save, and challenging every American to make the most of it.

So why not just leave it alone? Instead her policy says to set up retirement accounts for workers. It sounds so much like Social Security that it is confusing my poor mind.

American Dream Accounts. Americans deserve to know that a lifetime of work will ensure a secure retirement. We need a new approach that requires every employer to open a retirement account for every worker; enrolls workers automatically unless they opt out; increases their contribution automatically over time unless they direct otherwise; gives employees the advice and guidance to allow them to invest wisely; and enables workers to take their pensions with them when they change jobs

Why spend all that money on personal accounts when we could fix Social Security with it, and make it stable....unless it is that away already. :shrug:

[billyoc]

1. PPI

'nuff said. :puke:

[IndianaGreen]

3. Ding, ding, ding! We got a winner here!

PPI's neolibs are the flip side of the PNAC neocon coin. They both serve corporate interests and they both advocate privatization and using the military as the enforcer of globalism.

[...of J.Temperance]

155. More absolutely silly comments from you

You know nothing about the PPI it's perfectly obvious from other comments you've made.

[antigop]

20. And where is Wall Street money going?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ajK1PQvX6tk4&refer=us

[Jackpine Radical]

69. Perzackly.

The Regressive Policy Institute strikes again.

[w4rma]

189. PPI is the think tank part of the DLC which is a non-partisan lobbying organization for big business

And Carper is one of the biggest DLC DINOs in Congress.

[annabanana]

2. PPI is PNAC in a blue shirt instead of a red one.... . . . n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

159. Stop making such absurd comments

You really ought to read more about the PPI....because your comment there is SO absurd that it's not even amusing.

[papau]

4. Soc Sec is stable, but increasing the full benefits age & decreasing benefits paid at 62 makes sense

given that the age 67 to 70 change would start in 2030 and go over 36 years to increase the age 67 by the full 36 months needed to get to age 70.

Increasing life span along with the planet unable to support the population growth we have had of late make the current projections (and projection number 3 with its "optimistic" 1.6% GDP growth in the out years :-) does show no problem) a bit iffy.

It is prudent to put the age change in the law now and, if we get to the point that SS is generating massive surpluses, to take it out later if we want to raise benefits that way rather than using a simple percentage increase.

The American Dream Accounts (as proposed in 98 by Bill Clinton and now by Hillary) is a liberal alternative to stealing funds from SS for individual accounts so as to destroy SS. It is not the Reagan or GOP concept.

It is a mandatory 401k for everyone, with funding obtained from new money.

It is in effect a new entitlement benefit paid for via employer and employee contributions. I do not see why any liberal or progressive or working man advocate would be against it.

I do agree that working with the GOP on Social Security or Health care is a situation where you count your fingers after every handshake. But if the above is the only thing to come out of this effort, I have no problem sharing the credit with moderate GOPers.

I just wonder if there are really any "moderate" GOPers, and if they will be satisfied with the two reasonable suggestions above - and nothing more.

In any case the one GOP idea that is mentioned -to cut benefits drastically over time by reducing the standard of living of the aged below its current relationship to the standard of living for the working population - needs to be fought. Replacing the indexing by the wage index (which maintains the standard of living relationship between workers and non-workers) with an indexing by the CPI (which is always lower than the wage index as the country's standard of living improves decade over decade) is an evil that must be fought. If Senator Tom Carper is being used as a front man to sell this evil, he is a fool.

[Mojorabbit]

10. We have a small

business with three employees. No way we can afford this at least at a level which will make a difference to them.

[papau]

35. The employer level is 1% of wages - but it may be zero in final legislation n/t

[antigop]

17. I'm a progressive and I'm against it -- we don't need defined contribution programs

We need defined benefit -- like old traditional pensions and Social Security.

This is just a giveaway to Wall Street and an attempt to get more money into the stock market.

<edit to add> It is much more efficient to provide retirement benefits on a defined benefit basis --an actuarially based system with a trust fund -- than to provide retirement benefits on a defined contribution basis.

Just ask any actuary. :-)

[cuke]

23. The money can go into bonds or cash equivalents

If you know enough to recognize the difference between defined benefits and defined contributions, you should be familiar with the different investment options that are available

[antigop]

24. Nope, sorry. you miss the point. n/t

[cuke]

26. I understand it fine

The money can go into CD or into an interest bearing savings acct

[antigop]

27. Nope. You still don't. Sorry. wrong answer...I'm not playing tonight. I'm busy. I got work to do

<edit to add> Go ask an actuary.

[cuke]

31. You got nothing

My SIL's BIL is an actuary. I've already discussed this with him many times. And I worked for banks that handled similar accts for over 10 years.

You are wrong. Even SS isn't a defined benefit program (at least for most people). It's based on one's earnings (or the earnings of one's spouse/parent in the case of a minor, etc)

Let me know when you're able to post any facts

[davekriss]

113. Nonsense, SS operates as a defined benefit, not...

...as a defined contribution. Just as with traditional defined benefit pensions, the benefit does vary depending on years of service and earnings. The difference between "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" is with the former you get your benefit regardless of the health of the underlying finances, and with the latter whether or not you get your full benefit (or are rewarded with higher benefit) depends on your luck in the casino of investing.

[cuke]

142. You're right

I screwed up

[Lasher]

154. I respect that.

I wish more people were man or woman enough to admit when they are wrong. It is good to see this virtue still lives.

Lasher

[papau]

39. You are correct as to how this would invest - but as an income replacement program to keep seniors

off the streets and out of the welfare lines, a defined benefit plan based on replacement of salary works much better.

But even in the good old union power days we'd discuss the 3 legged stool with Soc Sec for 1/3rd, your employers defined benefit plan for 1/3rd and your savings for 1/3rd of your income for each year alive and retired. New in our world it is the savings part becoming 401k/IRA for those that save, and the defined benefit plan either being totally dropped, or being dropped with am employer contribution to the 401k being added. As the cost of the dropped defined benefit plan was usually around 8%, and the match on the 401k usually being 3 to 4 %, the employer has cut your wage by 4% when he drops his defined benefit plan.

[cuke]

41. I have no doubt that defined benefit programs are a safer investment

but if the concern is expense, as the OP suggests, then defined benefit plans are NOT the way to go.

And what you said about the 3-legged stool, and the replacement of defined benefit pensions (dbp's) with 401k type pgms is also spot on. However, the assumption of the 3-legged stool assumed that the defined benefit program would come from the employer and not the govt, and this was specifically because of the expense.

The reason why dbp's have been replaced is IMO due to the waning power of unions. The lack of negotiating power in the absence of unions is what gives employers the ability to do so

on edit: And all of this has little to do with the OPs premise because it's premise is gravely inaccurate. None of the money to fund these new accts will come from FICA. It's just another 401k type pgm that is susbsidized by the govt and employers and is completely voluntary on the part of the employee

[papau]

43. I agree on all your points - but in the world limited to what is possible now -this seems OK n/t

n/t

[cuke]

44. I added some more on edit that I think you missed. Here it is

on edit: And all of this has little to do with the OPs premise because it's premise is gravely inaccurate. None of the money to fund these new accts will come from FICA. It's just another 401k type pgm that is susbsidized by the govt and employers and is completely voluntary on the part of the employee

[papau]

60. True n/t

[papau]

36. very true - but not the way our non-union world is going n/t

[antigop]

50. And whose fault is that? And maybe you need to educate someone on this thread...

as to what a "defined benefit" pension is as opposed to a "defined contribution".

[cuke]

56. Employers, Republicans, Reagan, Bush, *

I'll defer to papua for a definition of dbp's vs dcp's

[papau]

57. No problem - Defined Benefit is an obligation to replace a given amount of your wage with

a pension - the employer takes on all investment risk (and reward if the market does really well) and you know when you start the job how much of your standard of living will be covered by the employers pension plan.

A defined contribution plan - and an undefined contribution plan like 401k/IRA - give you all the risk - if investments go to hell in a handbasket there is no employer to make up the difference - but the GOP greed sale is that get lucky in the market and you keep your lucky results all to yourself. The size of the savings needed to replace the defined benefit plan requires a massive change in worker saving habits - and that is not happening because the 5% of salary cut the employer gets by killing the defined benefit plan and "replacing" it with a larger 401k match where the match is 4% (say defined benefit pension cost of 9% less 4% giving a 5% saving to the employer) is not going back to the worker in the form of 5% higher wages. The worker has to decrease his standard of living so as to fund the retirement he once got from his employer.

But as the GOP say - be greedy - your 401k investment selection might do fantastic in the market and you will have all that money - and everyone likes to gamble - right?

Killing defined benefit plans is the usual slick GOP/corporate/rich person screwing of the worker - yet no one joins unions - amazing.

[antigop]

58. Thank you. It's obvious that there is a lack of understanding on this thread. n/t

[antigop]

59. And you forgot about the Dems being complicit in killing db plans. n/t

[dugggy]

104. My 401-k account is yielding more than 3 times my social security

check. And I contributed about the same amounts to each.
My 401-k is all in stocks.

[davekriss]

114. Lucky you

You had the discretionary income to contribute to your 401k and you had a job that offered one. Not everyone is so lucky.

[dugggy]

141. I just lived below my means and forced myself to save...

I lived in cheap apartments and bought older cars.
I did not go on an expensive vacation until I was 48.
I forced myself to put away 15% of my paycheck every
time I got paid.

People earning much more than me have saved much less
for their personal retirement. That is their fault.

[davekriss]

144. What if...

...just saying, what if that person earning much more than you faced extraordinary medical bills, forcing suspension of his/her contributions to the 401k, then got layed off and had to tap into retirement saving to pay for those life-sustaining medicines. So after a little while they had no retirement savings. Is that their fault?

That's why we have a social security program, to establish an income floor under which no citizen can fall should the wheel of fortune deal them bad blows. That security program should be bolstered, not weakened.

[dugggy]

147. You are talking about perhaps 5% of the population?

Unemployment hovers around 4% now-a-days. Assuming it is undercounted,
atleast 90% of the people are working. And 95% of those do not have
serious medical bills into their 20's, 30's and 40's. But the American
lifestyle is...consume...consume...consume.

Have you seen all the McMansions going up everywhere? How about those
shiny new cars everyone drives? I hardly ever see a car more than 10
years old on the streets. There are 100 NEW restaurants within 15 miles
from my house in the last 8 years. And they are usually packed. We had
to wait 30 minutes to get a table at a local TGIF on saturday evening.

Yes, there are some unfortunate few who can not save. But please don't
think most people are in that category. Just the opposite.

Rather than have a social security for everyone, it could be limited to
those who have serious health problems, had very low lifetime earnings,
etc. I am all for being compassionate. But if you earned above national
avaerage and had no serious medical bills, you don't deserve a handout.

[papau]

131. no one can calculate a "yield" for Soc Sec since you do not get a lump sum - you

get an annuity for life with CPI protection - and that type of annuity is not available in the insurance marketplace.

If anyone told you that your "401-k account is yielding more than 3 times your social security" change financial advisors unless they are a relative - if a relative suggested that "yield" comparison, the relative is talking about a non-CPI annuity being compared to the CPI indexed Soc Sec annuity, Just note that the non-cpi annuity is a today quote of a different annuity that is guaranteed to not be priced the same today as when you retire. For the sake of peace in the family don't blurt out that you are tired of hearing GOP bullshit. Be nice :-)

[dugggy]

139. The CPI protection with SocSec is total bullcrap.....

What we seniors buy such as food, gasoline, medical bills, insurance
and taxes we pay such as real estate tax are all going UP much much
much faster than the bull shit CPI numbers your govermint is throwing at us.

May be they include computers & clothes & ipods in the CPI which we
don't buy many.

As for the yield on my stocks, I re-balance every year between Money market
fund, gold ETF's and S&P500 index funds. I started putting money in my
personal retirement acconts (10 to 15% of my earnings) when I was 25
and 42 years later that value has grown enormously. I take money out of
those accounts as needed to pay bills. And I am taking out 3 times my
social security checks and my account is not degrading at a fast rate.
I should be able to cash out for 20 to 25 years before the accounts zero
out. Well, my social security checks will also zero out when I kick the
bucket!

So all I am comparing is what I put into social security for 40 years and
what I put into my personal retirement accounts and I am getting more out
of my personal accounts. Much more.

Can every one do their own personal money management? I don't think so. But
what I did is not all that complicated. The government can easily set up such
an account for those who wish to participate.

[papau]

188. There is no CPI - of any sort - in the private annuity market - but you are indeed correct

that the CPI calculation understates the real CPI for every one, and the understatement is largest for the lower income - which means most of the aged.

Folks note that the elderly are on welfare to a lesser extent than the general population - and claim that proves their "wealth" - forgetting that the elderly must LIVE OFF that savings for the rest of their life.

If we do totally move to self-financed retirement - it would be wise for the corporations to give each employee and retiree 3 packs of cigarettes each day, so as to keep the elderly from moving to the welfare rolls as they age.

As to "So all I am comparing is what I put into social security for 40 years and what I put into my personal retirement accounts and I am getting more out
of my personal accounts. Much more." since you can't turn the Soc Sec payment into a lump sum via any market value of the payment - there being no CPI protected annuity that adds a 50% joint account should you ever remarry, covers disability of any adopted or late in marriage kids, etc. in the market - you must be falling for the GOP analyses that ignore all that and pretend that all you get is an insurance company annuity.

In any case on a generational basis the boomers are getting a little less than what they paid in - the ratio being about a max of 106%. This is necessary because the 1939 start up crowd paid near zero for a tiny benefit of much larger value that barely allow the majority the dignity of not going on welfare - they got more than they paid in. Future generations will get 100% of what they paid in, more or less (assuming their is no drastic change in the birth or death rate).

[dugggy]

194. My main point is not privatizing entire socsec, but rather

emphasizing what personal savings can achieve. And I am
living proof that it has paid more than my return on
social security taxes I paid over the years. Significantly more.

[antigop]

53. And thank you for agreeing with me about the "truth". n/t

[brokensymmetry]

37. I'm with you.

Defined contribution is fine...IF...yields meet expectations.

Sometimes, the train goes off the track. Sometimes, even
over extended periods of time, the yield does not meet
expectations.

Keep Social Security as it is. And for those who want
an IRA, then by all means - get one!

[cuke]

45. So do you oppose Social Security

It's not a defined benefit program

[davekriss]

115. Wrong, it operates as a defined benefit program

The difference between "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" is who owns the risk to maintain the earned benefit. The earned benefit will vary with a traditional pension depending on years of service and salary level. The worker on the plant floor who retires with 5 years of service gets much less than the department manager with 30 years of service -- i.e., the benefit will vary. But the risk to ensure the defined benefit is paid belongs to the employer, not the investment savvy of the worker or manager.

[cuke]

47. I disagree with two points. Otherwise, well done

For one thing, it will be a disaster for many to raise the eligibility age or penalize more for early retirement. Think of people who have jobs involving manual labor. How long are they expected to keep at that? We'd only be increasing the # of seniors with serious and expensive health problems. Where's the savings.

It is not mandatory. Employees can opt out, but opting in is the default

[papau]

51. Age 62 right to retire is maintained - but you get less - and your point is true that

seniors with health problems normally retire at 62 and are therefore harmed by the age increase.

But the otherside is of course the fact that Federal Government wants to obligate itself to only so many actual years of benefits - and by living longer one increases the number of years of benefits. There is no easy answer, but this once one is more gentle than others if we must do cost containment.

[cuke]

55. Fair enough

You've been doing an outstanding job. I can't expect we'll agree on everything, but it's obvious you know what you're talking about and your intentions are solid

[JDPriestly]

77. There is a huge catch. Yes, we live longer, but

it is next to impossible to get a decent job after you are 60. I lost a job due to my age. (My boss admitted it to me outright.) My husband also lost a job due,in part, to age discrimination by students who stated quite bluntly that he was "too old" to teach on his evaluations. It was not true. He managed to get a part-time job at another school, and his students and the administration love him. He just met up with some very prejudiced students and the administration bowed to the prejudice.

There are several reasons for the age discrimination. One is that our society worships youth and good looks, not wisdom and experience. A second is that people change as they age. Many people become somewhat more forgetful or may not learn as easily. Some actually become less flexible even cranky. Virtually everyone gets arthritis after a certain age. I have a really bad case of it although I keep active and therefore don't feel it at all. At 64, I already notice that I get tired a lot more easily than I did even five years ago. And when I get tired, I just fall asleep. Oh, and I can't drink much caffeine any more because of my high blood pressure.

So, you see, if you saw me, you would think I am the picture of health, and I actually am, especially for my age. But employers prefer to hire younger applicants even though I have proved myself as capable and successful in my work. To be honest, I really can't carry quite the work load that younger people can carry although I believe that my good judgment and my ability to get along with other people compensate for the fact that I can't work quite the hours I used to.

Another big problem is that employers do not want to invest in training older people because they figure the older person will not still be working in 10 years. That is the excuse my boss gave when he fired me. It is against the law in California to discriminate against older people by refusing to offer them equal training or educational opportunities, but it is cheaper for employers to simply throw a small sum of money your way and buy you off than to continue to give you the opportunity to work. Who wants to work for less than half the pay that a younger person with comparable skills would be paid? Do you? So, you see, this issue is more complex than most people realize. If we had equal employment opportunities and if aging were less of a problem in many jobs, most people would work longer.

[sandyd921]

112. Unfortunately the realities for us older workers

are not something our senators appear to have any knowledge of. Many continue to draw a substantial salary and the generous benefits we pay for well into their senior years. But apparently their attitude is that what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

[SharonAnn]

179. The real problem is that they don't want to deal with the tax problem.

Social Security is funding the US Government functions with its surplus because taxes aren't enough. The tax cuts have significantly reduced the amount of money available to run the government, so the Social Security surplus is used to do it.

There's no problem with Social Security. At least not compared to the problem of too little tax revenue and too much spending on other things.

[wyldwolf]

5. you refuse to accept a fact about social security. It was NEVER mean to be lived on.

It's INSURANCE, not a wage.

When you retire, do you want to live on $1000. a month or less? Do you think that's the Democratic thing to do? Screw that. If I can have a government created saving account as a companion to SS, I'll vote for the person who offers it.

[madfloridian]

8. I think it is unnecessary to spend the money. Stop talking down to me.

We do not need to have the government set up private savings accounts.

As hard as you are protesting, I think there is something to what I am asking.

It makes no sense to spend the money when we have such a huge deficit. When Clinton first proposed it we had a surplus to be used for that.

When a group is pushing something like this and it makes no sense...then I wonder.

[wyldwolf]

11. no, it's very necessary to spend the money. Why?

Because social security payments do not rise at the same rate of inflation goods and services do, the money you get when you retire will not go as far as it does with retirees today. You will NOT be able to live on your SS benefits.

Don't pretend to be worried about the deficit. You don't throw up those concerns in regards to universal healthcare. And you would be just as opposed to this if were were running a surplus. Of the many times you've revisited this topic, this is the FIRST time you used that reasoning.

You have two motivators for your in your opposition to private companion accounts. One, you don't want anything that might appear to undo antiquated new deal policies. Even Barack Obama calls for revisiting new deal and great society programs that simply "no longer work as advertised."

Two, you'd rather retired people be poor than accept anything from the Clintons or the DLC.

[madfloridian]

18. I thought I had heard all your BS

But I was wrong.

[wyldwolf]

54. which part was BS?

Your irrational fear of the DLC or your irrational fear of anything that will compensate for the shortcomings of New Deal and Great Society programs?

[davekriss]

117. Put the federal spend supporting companion accounts...

...into maintaining or increasing social security's defined benefits.

[wyldwolf]

122. I didn't say that

...whatever it is you just said...:shrug:

[cuke]

32. I'd be homeless if it weren't for my mom's private retirement savings acct

aka 401k

[papau]

46. with the wage indexing, Social Security benefits for the currently working rise faster than the CPI

it is only after retirement that you get locked into the CPI (wages determine standard of living and idea is to use wage index so you can know what standard of living you will retire at).

If there is a replacement of the wage index by the CPI as suggested by the GOP and this group, it will be a cut of (fill in the blank - for new borns it is perhaps a 60% cut) of the Social Security benefit they will get relative to current promises.

[papau]

40. idea is screw the artificial deficit due to under-taxing the rich - and pass things like this with

a tax fix later and a cut in war/defense/intel spending ASAP.

[cuke]

49. And it's a realistic strategy

Much better than pie in the sky fantasies that will leave me homeless while waiting for it to pass

[rucognizant]

73. B---S--- Cukes!

It's a rip off. My Great Grandparents were the first recipients of SS and they lived a lovely serene life in their own home, no nursing home assisted living.........TO THE AGES OF (94 & 96 in 1946!) MY NEIGHBOR JUST DIED A FEW YEARS AGO SHE WAS 102 & lived in her own home until she was 101! Going blind and deaf, she retained her mental acuity even in the local ( warm & fuzzy nursing home here) SHe was comfortable on her SS income!

If you want to be assured of SS in your old age DON'T ENABLE THE PRESENT POLITICIANS..................GET OUT INTHE STREET AND MARCH FOR IMPEACHMENT, AND CHANGE OF PERSONNEL IN DC!

I see on MSNBC this morning the DEMOCRATIC congress has just voted a 4 day work week for themselves in Jan 2008!

I am 68, my income is $9,888. I will probably live another 20-25 years, given my genetic makeup, ( unless I freeze to death or get sick from lack of healthy diet. )
I am an artist I have at least 30 years of painting I want to do before I die. Unfortunately on a low income a lot of my time is taken over by things like:
yesterday: buying a 2 gal can, going to the service station for 2 gal of diesel fuel to add to my heater tank because LIHEAP hasn't kicked in yet and the temp was dropping. If the furnace stops it will cost $45.00 to get it bled to start again.
standing in the wind, rain, & dark pouring the fuel down the pipe. Than God, I didn't buy the 5 gal can, my knees wouldn't have lasted! A really swell ceative way to live. THESE ARE MY GOLDEN YEARS! MY REWARD FOR WORKING MY TAIL OFF AND LIVING A VIRTUOUS LIFE. I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE ROBBED AND CHEATED PEOPLE SO I WOU,LD BE MORE COMFORTABLE NOW.
( I used to make good money with my art, until the Reagan Bush recession of 1990, I spent the 90's doing dumb low pay jobs, trying to restart my career in an ever dumbing down, cheap plastic import favoring society! ( WELL just look at how they vote!)
SOmebody just paid $15,000. to be remembered in history as first passengers on that superjet flight from SIngapor to Sidney. That's what we paid for our first house back in 1968!
Somebody just cut out frills ( lattees, etc. ) and saved $40,000 in one year. THAT'S FIVE YEARS INCOME FOR ME!
Sadly I have a lot more to offer the world than these people ........IF ONLY I WERENT SO BUSY CARRYING GAS CANS!

[cuke]

94. I understand where you're coming from

and you have my sympathies. My story is different in many ways, but I fear that I may end up in a place much like yours.

I'm 48 yo, and I worked as a computer programmer for about 25 years. I made quite a decent living. Not rich, but for a single guy, I was doing well and saving towards my retirement. Then my mother got Alzheimer's.

Her medical insurance doesn't cover any sort of day care or companionship or anything really because the things she needed (someone to make sure she didn't hurt herself) were not considered "medically necessary" and her long-term care ins didn't cover it because it was designed to kick in after a long hospitalization. The cost would have to come out of our pockets, and since my mother wasn't going to pay (like many, my mother is not aware there is anything wrong with her) and since I didnt have the money to pay someone out of pocket, So I had to quit my job so that I could take care of her.

I have gone through my retirement savings which took me almost 30 years of working to accumulate. My mother's money (which I will soon have access to) should be just enough to provide for her care until she is eligible for Medicaid. 30 years of her savings, and 30 years of my savings are all going to disappear over the course of a few years. I can't go back to my career (not that I want to anymore) because by the time I'm ready to do so, I'll have been out of the feild for so long, no one will want to hire a 50yo pgmr who hasn't worked for years.

My mother deserves more than being driven into pennitude in her old age, and I shouldn't have to bankrupt myself to ensure that she is well cared for. And I haven't even begun to get into the toll this has taken on me physically and emotionally, and I have no insurance to pay for the care I could use.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

126. Nice right wing ideology you have there. nt

[cuke]

130. All hate, no content

all you have is hate

[Sarah Ibarruri]

133. I am hateful because I'm pointing out that poor people have no money to invest?

How do you figure that?

[madfloridian]

134. Some don't have to reason it out....they just get to say it.

and that makes it right. I've been seeing a lot of that lately.

[cuke]

135. Because these accts are not meant to help those too poor to save, Einstein

Every pgm doesn't have to be about the poor. This is a pgm for the middle class and for the economy

From her speech introducing the plan

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3640

"...This is a major commitment to how I think we can begin to right the balance again. Here's how American retirement accounts will work: To give a strong incentive for saving, my plan will offer working and middle-class families generous matching tax cuts...

...That means tens of millions of middle-class families will be eligible for matching tax cuts of up to $500 and $1,000 to help them build a nest egg....

...In short, my plan will help tens of millions of go from just getting by to getting ahead. "

Nowhere in the speech does she claim these accts will benefit people too poor to save anything

[Sarah Ibarruri]

186. Every program people like you come up with is only about the rich and well-to-do.

And there's no reason to insult me when the one lacking is you.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

81. I'm 100% with you. Social Security money has been used like a bank account

The money going into Social Security is not supposed to be a bank account for the rich. It's supposed to be for Social Security. It's not even a cowboy mentality. With a cowboy mentality, you have *everyone* pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That is, the rich are no longer allowed to be living off the dole on my tax money. However, in THIS country, they want my tax money to fund new homes for CEOs like Blackwater's, European secret accounts for the owners of Haliburton, free money for running their giant corporations, but they'll kill before they'll keep their hands off the segment of my taxes that's supposed to go to Social Security. Just can't keep their @#$# hands off that money, can they?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Here are 3 bits of info. to challenge you on that......

......
The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer......

Here is a little-known fact: each year the government collects tens of billions of dollars more in Social Security taxes than it needs to pay out in benefits. What happens to the surplus? This year as in every year since 1983 Congress will spend it on other programs. The total Social Security surplus will be $70 billion in 2006, all of which will be spent on other programs, masking the true size of the federal deficit.

Economic advisors to Congress warn the cost of U.S.-led war on terror could exceed $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Much of that funding comes from money borrowed overseas, and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says it would be best to start paying for the war now and not let the debt grow.

[wyldwolf]

13. ok

The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer......

But you can't live on it, or, why would you want to try? And why is any of this even relevant? Does any of it mean retired people don't want or need more money at retirement? Does private account independent of social security that draws on two percent of your payroll taxes or private accounts that one pays into in anyway effect social security?

No.

What you wrote isn't in dispute. It simply isn't relevant to private companion accounts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

71. You're saying that it's not enough to provide a nice lifestyle.....

Fine. That's not the point. The point is that many old people are unable to accumulate any money. CEOs are now pocketing every penny they can instead of paying appropriate salaries, pensions and to sufficient employees. This economy is extremely difficult compared to others. LOTS of old people get to the end of their life without having reached upper middle class and saving up a good amount for living off of. They *DO* have to live on social security. They don't want to, but HAVE TO.

[wyldwolf]

74. we're not discussing "old people" We're discussing future old people

It has nada to do with CEOs and corporations and other boogiemen. It has to do with today's working people investing in private accounts so that when they are "old people," they have more than today's "old people."

[Sarah Ibarruri]

79. You can't be serious

Doing away with pensions was integrally related to the creation of 401Ks. That money now lands in the pockets of CEOS who are making what was it? 500 times what they were making in 1960?

[wyldwolf]

83. sure I am. And wait! You approve of pensions???

Pensions are independent of SS.

Look. If you want to try to live off of the small amount SS is going to pay you, just decline any offer of private investment accounts. :shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

85. 401K took the place of pensions. Right wing Dems and GOPers are dying to kill Social Security too..

by saying that 401K is good enough for the poor and middle class. It's bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

88. says who? Where have you seen or read that 401ks took the place of pension accounts?

Leftwing "progressives"* obviously want to keep people dependent.

[cuke]

95. Defined contribution plans (DCP) like 401K's have taken the place of

Defined Benefit Plans (DBP) like pensions. However, one must be either very confused or very reactionary to think that the issue of DCP vs DBP has much to with SS.

As papua points out in a post up above, unions use to talk about the "three-legged stool" that was meant to support us in our senior years - Soc Sec for 1/3rd, your employers defined benefit plan for 1/3rd and your savings for 1/3rd of your income for each year alive and retired. As you can see, the DBP's and DCP's that we are talking about are the 2nd leg (the employer supplied leg) and SS is the 1st leg.

People just hear the words SS and react by throwing a tizzy. This being DU, just throw in the words DLC, and watch the heads explode. No need to actually familiarize oneself with the details; no matter that it has NOTHING to do with the soundness of SS finances; just post irrelevant links to decades old laws that have absolutely nothing to do with these savings accts and rants about the DLC

After all, it's not that they actually care about seniors enough to learn the facts.

[...of J.Temperance]

156. It makes sense

People under 40 years-old today should be investing in private accounts, because chances are at this rate, when they get to be old people, there's not going to be enough money around to be able to afford them a decent retirement income.

I see nothing wrong with having a Bi-Partisan Commission regarding Social Security....Social Security I don't think is going to be privatized, I would however say that raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 is a pretty good idea.

[cuke]

25. It's like a govt and business subsidized 401k plan

All of a sudden we're opposed to 401k plans?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

72. 401K plans are bullshit. I'm old enough to remember when they pulled 401s out of their @$$....

I'm not that old, but I recall the 401 bullshit. The purpose of 401Ks was so that companies would no longer have to provide pensions as part of a worker's compensation. And so it happened. Now companies do not. CEOs and boards pay the minimum wage and pocket the rest. And the beauty for them of this is that this country has no protection of small business. It permits the big fish to swallow the little fish, so one can barely make one's tiny business work versus these monsters. The end result? Almost everyone is forced to work for these corporations.

Social security must stay.

[wyldwolf]

76. 401Ks are excellent. And, why are people here intentionally confusing the difference...

..between private accounts and social security. The proposals are to have both. But you know that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

78. 401K plans are excellent for the rich and those of us who make decent wages

The rest are screwed, and Republicans and right wing Democrats are just itching to do away with social security under the guise that 401K solves the problems of the poor. So it is bullshit. Further, those who make enough money, can sock enough away to make a 401K worthwhile. Those who are using their paycheck to pay for milk, gas, healthcare, have barely anything to put away so their 401K will amount to almost nothing when they retire. The wealthy and those with a good salary can put enough away and so they're happy as pigs in mud about 401K. Lastly, 401K is Las Vegas. You take a pension which is a guaranteed amount of money, do away with it, give it to the CEOs, and then tell your employees that they must now take THEIR OWN MONEY and play high stakes at Vegas.

As I said, it's bullshit. Retirement funds must be guaranteed for a large proportion of the population. We need to stop being such a savage nation and learn from Europe.

[wyldwolf]

82. so your contention is because some can't afford 401Ks, no one should have them?

:rofl:

Sorry, the scare tactics those like you use are just that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

84. You obviously read nothing I typed.....

I said that they TOOK THE PLACE of pensions. Former pension money now lands in the pockets of CEOs, higher management, and board members. The middle class is now forced to use their own money to place the high-stakes Vegas stock market. It's bullshit.

What's more, the rich always had access to the stock market. They should've continued to play in it.

[wyldwolf]

89. I read it all. Private investment accounts DID NOT take the place of pensions

There is no law stating as such.

Like most leftwing "progressives"* you want to keep people dependent on the government.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

92. I want my tax money used for what it should be used for. Social Security is not a bank account for

the rich and shouldn't be used as such.

[cuke]

96. 401k plans have NOTHING TO DO WITH SS

I do know what sort of fever produced this hallucination of yours but the fact that 401k's replaced pension plans has NOTHING TO DO WITH SS!!!

401k's did not become the new pension plan because of any change in SS. In fact, SS pays out more now then it did before 401K plans become so widespread. Employers replaced pensions with 401k plans for one simple reason - BECAUSE THEY COULD!!!

And the reason they could do that was because of the decline of unions. Didn't you notice that the rise of the 401k plan and the disappearance of pension plans followed shortly after Reagan's assault on unions during the 80's? Didn't you notice that you can't point to one change in SS that explains the rise of 401k plans?

Yet, you'll continue to claim that this has something to do with eliminating SS and nothing to do with the decline of organized labor

[Sarah Ibarruri]

125. They're not the same thing, but 401Ks are being used as an excuse to do away with SS....

....just as they were used to take away pensions, so high mgmt in corporations could pocket the money.

[cuke]

167. No, 401K's are being used to replace pensions, not SS

Since 401k's came into existence, SS benefits have INCREASED

[Sarah Ibarruri]

183. The argument is being shaped the same for eliminating SS...

... "Oh, it's not sufficient".... "oh it was never meant to be something to live on".... oh, there's not enough money in the SS fund left".. "oh there's 401K and people should 'take advantage' of that"... oh this oh that oh the other.

It's always the same right wing bullshit.

[TheOtherMaven]

101. Reality Check

"Private investment accounts DID NOT take the place of pensions. There is no law stating as such."

There was and is no law FORBIDDING employers to substitute 401K plans for pensions - so guess what they did. They did it on their own, because it LET THEM KEEP MORE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES' MONEY.

Pensions are ancient history, with a few very rare exceptions. 401Ks are the way most businesses have gone. The rich keep on getting richer and screwing the poor harder and harder.

[cuke]

102. They did not do it "on their own"

Business had Reagan and the repukes help them by destroying unions. If more people were unioned, we'd be able to demand defined benefit pension plans

[davekriss]

123. Um, in my "progressive" world...

...the government is for and by We the People, it isn't the bogeyman. If we decide democratically to put in place "government" programs that broadly benefit our fellow citizens, then who are you to belittle it ("keep dependent")? I hear echos of those "why should I have to pay?" crowd, you know, those who swallowed too many red Reagan pills.

401K programs did indeed replace defined benefit programs. Many such programs were converted to defined contribution. The vested were paid a present value lump sum into their new defined contribution plan, which sometimes was increased a bit to quell objection. From that point on the worker could reduce his pay to finance his or her own retirement, albeit often with a matching sum which was quite less than the corporate costs to maintain the defined benefit plan. The corporate world does nothing that does not serve shareholder value, and the great conversion from defined benefit to defined contribution served to lesson obligations on shareholders.

[davekriss]

121. If you were addressing me, I would say...

...since MANY can't afford 401k's, we should be doing everything we can to shore up and strengthen the secure income floor, not add additional programs that disproportionately benefit the better off. First things first.

[cuke]

175. I have to strongly disagree

I do not think that every pgm dems propose must end the war on poverty before we can start helping those who are not as bad off.

[wyldwolf]

75. only because it isn't someone acceptable by the left who is proposing it

[Sarah Ibarruri]

80. Uh.... last I checked they took the place of company pensions. nt

[wyldwolf]

87. only if a company wants them to

But if you're such a fan of company pensions, I can't see why you're not a fan of some of the SS companion account ideas being floated. One which takes 2% of your payroll tax off the top and invests it. You'll never miss it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

91. Take investment bingo out of any discussion of retirement plans. nt

[cuke]

97. You can invest in bond or cash equivalents like CD's

Don't you know ANYTHING about investing?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

124. As I said, take the investment bingo out of social security. nt

[cuke]

127. You can invest in bond or cash equivalents like CD's

Don't you know ANYTHING about investing?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

128. Poor people don't have the money to invest in anything. What are you trying to prove?

If there's something you're trying to prove, say so.

[cuke]

129. You can invest in bond or cash equivalents like CD's

There's no risk inherent in these accts. Your rants about the stock market risks are blather

All you can do is repeat your tired old talking points. You can't even back them up with anything besides irrelevancies. You haven't made one true statement in this thread

[Sarah Ibarruri]

132. Poor people have no money to invest.

Please take the time to read what is being said, rather than provide knee-jerk right wing responses to my comments. Thanks.

[cuke]

136. And?

These accts are not a poverty program. They aren't meant to benefit people to poor to save any money. It's meant to benefit working class and middle class families. Every program doesn't have to benefit the poor.

You're grasping for a reason to criticize, and you don't care if what you say is true or relevant

[madfloridian]

137. Can you show me where they are not meant for the poor?

I can go way back to the 90s there at the DLC and PPI websites, and there is stuff talking about people who are poor. I think you should on individual savings accounts, which I believe is the previous term used...at www.dlc.org . Or do a tab at the top for their sister site PPI.

Here is what is said in the Dream Initiative:

"American Dream Accounts. Americans deserve to know that a lifetime of work will ensure a secure retirement. We need a new approach that requires every employer to open a retirement account for every worker; enrolls workers automatically unless they opt out; increases their contribution automatically over time unless they direct otherwise; gives employees the advice and guidance to allow them to invest wisely; and enables workers to take their pensions with them when they change jobs."

Gee, that sounds so much like Social Security. Some parts are different, but not that much.

What part tells you it is not for the poor? The ISAs were originally said to be for the poor.

:shrug:

[cuke]

138. It's in another post in this thread

I'm not talking about the 90's and what people then we're talking about. I'm talking about what a presidential candidate is proposing NOW.

"Gee, that sounds so much like Social Security. Some parts are different, but not that much."

I guess it would to someone who doesn't realize that SS is mandatory and takes 12% of your wages, while ADA's are completely voluntary and you put in as much or as little as you like, subject to the limits the legislation puts in place

"What part tells you it is not for the poor? "

The parts I linked to and quoted in another post in this thread

[madfloridian]

140. So why not just have Social Security and let people save on their own?

It appears to me this will put pressure on small businesses.

Anyone know? Seems like twice the work.

[cuke]

143. Economics.

To put it simply, we cannot afford a tax revenue based Defined Benefit Plan that covers our entire retirement. Demographics make it impossible in all but the most fortunate of circumstances (many workers, few retirees). Instead the idea was, as described in another post by papua a three-legged stool meant to support us in our retirement

"But even in the good old union power days we'd discuss the 3 legged stool with Soc Sec for 1/3rd, your employers defined benefit plan for 1/3rd and your savings for 1/3rd of your income for each year alive and retired. New in our world it is the savings part becoming 401k/IRA for those that save, and the defined benefit plan either being totally dropped, or being dropped with am employer contribution to the 401k being added."

These new accounts are meant to be a part of the third leg; the personal retirement savings leg. It doesn't effect SS at all. It's meant to strengthen the private savings portion of the stool. Our national savings rate is very low and this pgm is meant to increase it. (this is the heart of Clintonomics, more later)

wrt your concerns in the OP

The desire of some to have SS revenues used for this accompanied by a corresponding cut in SS benefits (sold under the idea that your SS money is better off invested in the stock market where it will get better returns) is, as you note in your OP, a republican/corporatist/DLC plot to undermine SS. However, HRC's plan is NOT part of this scheme to undermine SS. I can tell because her plan is missing the two essential elements that the DLCers have said they want:

1) Use SS funds to finance/subsidize private accts (to undermine it's financial security)
2) Lower the SS benefits (to eliminate the govt's liability and place it on the individual)

Another reason why I think HRC's plan has nothing to do with undermining SS is because this debate is the same exact one that occurred in the 90's during the Clinton Administration, and Clinton's plan was not the one the republicans and the DLC wanted. Instead, Bill Clinton went for "Social Security Plus", a savings plan that did not use SS funds and did not lower SS benefits. This is also true of Hillary Clinton's current plan.

Back to Clintonomics

Many economists credit the boom of the 90's in large part to "easy credit". Basically, it means that there was a large pool of capital available to be invested. Supply and demand dictate that when supply (available capital) outstrips demand (people looking for business development loans) by a significant margin, prices (interest rates) drop. This large pool of capital is created by the money that people save. People saved during the Clinton admin because they started pouring their money into 401k plans, a policy that the Clinton admin pushed almost back to day one. This is Clintonomics. Reich, Summers, and Rubin were the architects. Basically, this plan should achieve similar results, though probably not quite as extreme as it was in the 90's.

[cuke]

145. Here is that other post, MF

From her speech introducing the plan

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3640

"...This is a major commitment to how I think we can begin to right the balance again. Here's how American retirement accounts will work: To give a strong incentive for saving, my plan will offer working and middle-class families generous matching tax cuts...

...That means tens of millions of middle-class families will be eligible for matching tax cuts of up to $500 and $1,000 to help them build a nest egg....

...In short, my plan will help tens of millions of middle-class families go from just getting by to getting ahead. "

Nowhere in the speech does she claim these accts will benefit people too poor to save anything

[madfloridian]

149. They already have Social Security. Why reinvent the wheel?

Unless it is to give an incentive to private companies, I see no benefit.

[cuke]

150. Expense, and it's not inventing the wheel

We can't afford to expand SS to cover our entire retirement. That's why none of the candidates are proposing that. And when I say none, I'm not just talking about the dems and the repukes. I'm including Nader and everyone else.

As far as reinventing the wheel, it's nothing of the kind. It's a savings acct. It's just like a 401K plan and banks and brokerage houses, etc are already set up to handle them. The only difference is where the money in the acct is coming from, and that's not the banks problem. They take whatever money comes in and it's no problem for them.

The burden, little that there is, is on the employer's side. The employer will be responsible for enrolling the employee, and seeing that the proper deductions are made, and that the employer makes their share of the money gets deposited on a timely basis. Like most payroll matter, everything but the enrolling of the employee with be farmed out to a payroll processing company. Even small businesses do this. It's not a burden. It's one extra form to fill out when you hire a new employee.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

185. But they're being used as an excuse to eliminate anything for the poor....

.... the poor are urged to invest in these towards their future. With what?

[blondie58]

148. cuke, I find it really curious that you've only been a member since Oct 2007,

yet you have 1898 posts. You are quite loquacious.

[cuke]

163. I'm unemployed

I stay home and watch my sick mother.

And thanks for asking me a personal question on a public forum in order to satisfy your curiosity

[blondie58]

170. well, technically, I didn't ask any personal questions...

I just made an observation. The information that you gave me is less than you've already volunteered on the post already. I am sorry about your mom, I don't have that screen up right now, but didn't you say it was Alzheimer's? You're a good son- your mother is lucky.

[cuke]

174. well, technically, you broke the rules

I'm not going to quibble about if you "asked a question", "made an implication" or if it's personal. You broke the rules, and instead of doing the right thing and apologizing, you're trying to justify it.

[blondie58]

177. well, if you want an apology, here it is-

I apologize from the bottom of my heart. I didn't realize that I would cause you so much strife. Sincerely, I wish you peace, which it sounds like you don't have in your life right now.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

184. Maybe he has his reasons for being in here.

We would probably guess correctly.

[RawMaterials]

178. Actually cash and cash equivilants do have inherent risk

They risk losing purchasing power over time to inflation.

[davekriss]

119. A quibble

The surplus FICA taxes are invested in special treasury bonds which pay (below market) interest. The U.S. working and retired citizens are bondholders just as Japan and China and Joe Wallstreet are. When it comes time to pay back the principle, what will our ruling class say to us? Sorry, we can afford to pay the Japanese and Chinese and Joe Wallstreet, but we're going to default on our obligation to U.S. citizens. Wonderful but true. So the ruling class will have collected about $2 trillion in surplus by 2012 (about when SS will have to draw down the trust fund), only to tell us f*ck you when we're least able to do anything about it? There's a word for that: THEFT.

[davekriss]

116. As a companion to SS...

...with no benefit reduction to SS, by all means create another incentive to save. I have no problem with that. Recognize, thought, that 50% of the working population do not have the discretionary income to contribute to IRA's and 401K's, so adding a possible third savings venue will not necessarily help them.

Social security is meant to be just that, security, an income floor below which no disabled or senior citizen falls. It is meant to keep the unwashed masses (of which I am proudly a part) from utter destitution. It has very successfully met those goals.

[KoKo]

6. For our "Economy" (rofl) to Survive we've got to get the "young folks" into Stock Market so they

won't depend on that Social Security Thingy that "Granny" used to get. After all...convincing young folks that "Granny" got her SS on the backs of their interests is what the Repugs/Supply Siders..are all about!

Convince them that they are paying for Granny or their Parents (remember most kids today come from mult-marriages" so their loyalties are not to Mom and Dad but Step Mom/Real Dad or Step Dad/Real Mom or "Multiples of Combinations" and so why the Hell should they care about how this multiple family gets along and whether they are entitled or worthy of SS...it means it's taking money out of THEIR PAYCHECK and they are SICK OF IT!

The Young have a point! With multiple family loyalties or no loyalties at all ...WHY should THEY continue to support their TAX DOLLARS DEDUCTED to go for folks they don't care about or have any interaction with.

It just doesn't mean the same for THEM as it does the PROMISE for many of us...and how much WE had DEDUCTED to PAY FOR this...!

It's a real problem and Dems need to make the case as to why this is an important Dem Principle and NOT CAVE... but...we know what will happen.

[cuke]

21. The money can go into bonds or cash equivalents

Don't you understand 401k plans?

[KoKo]

61. Bonds or Cash Equivalents....I think YOU don't understand how 401-K's work...

and what one's potential of Bonds or Cash Equivalents being there in payments for folks when their job is lost, they become disabled to tap in or to wait for a check when one is old and not able to work anymore.

[cuke]

98. I bet you don't even know what Cash Equivalents are

If you did, you'd know the only way to lose with Cash Eqs is if the economy totally melts down, in which case, SS and your retirement savings will be worthless anyway

And just so you know, I am intimately aware of what happens to someone when they get old. My mom has Alzheimer's and I quit my job two years ago to take care of her. I have no job, no health insurance, my career as a programmer (with over 10yrs experience pgmg systems or banks to track these types of accts) is destroyed, and my retirement savings have been depeleted and I get absolutely no help from the govt and her insurance doesn't cover someone to watch her and take care of her because it is not "medically necessary". Medicare doesnt cover it because my mother is not poor, but she wont pay for any of her care because she is unaware, in her condition, that there is any problem.

So please don't tell me what I don't understand about retirement. I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about the subject

[EVDebs]

191. Put that money in Long Term Capital Management and Enron stock ROFLOL

ROFLMAOAPMP
Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Ass Off And Peeing My Pants

[madrchsod]

7. american dream accounts?

biggest pile of shit i have ever seen in my 60 years on this planet. this plan along with other dlc programs does nothing to help the great unwashed ,it`s sole purpose is to reward the corporations in this country for supporting the dlc democrats.


"The age for qualifying for Social Security benefits may need to be raised to reflect longer American life spans, Sens. Thomas R. Carper D-Del., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said at a meeting yesterday on the federal budget. When Social Security was created in 1935, a 65-year-old could expect to live another 12.5 years. Today’s 65-year-olds often have another 17.5 years left, according to Social Security’s Web site. Some Americans will go on for years way beyond that projection, said Graham, whose predecessor, Strom Thurmond, died in 2003 at 100."

what fucking planet do these guys live on?

it sure is`t the one i live on...i`m 60 years old and beat to shit cause i actually worked my ass off for 40 or so years...ya there`s alot of guys and gals just like me who want to retire and start enjoying what ever time we have left...this shit totally pisses me off....

[papau]

42. disability Soc Sec is unaffected, and age 62 benefits are not decrease until after 2030 n/t

n/t

[sandnsea]

12. $30,000 is the median salary

$14.61 an hour in May of 2006. People are always shocked to realize how little most Americans live on.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

Otherwise, yeah, we're fucked. There isn't any way Hillary can tell the truth about our FICA money because that would mean she'd have to expose the "budget surplus" of the 90's. They're going to get away with giving it to the wealthy and not one Democrat is going to stand up and fight for us.

[papau]

48. The Clintons had one year of a real budget surplus w/national debt decreasing (1/1/2000 to 12/31)

the other surplus years were only "budget surplus" due to Soc Sec surplus not counting.

But Clinton did indeed have the first true budget surplus over a 12 month year since LBJ (note that the fiscal year for the federal government is 10/1 to 9/30 and that Bush moved 2001 expense into 2000 so as to kill Clintons true budget surplus in terms of the governments fiscal year of 10/1/2000 to 9/30/2001)

[sandnsea]

68. Not sure of that

His announced budget surplus was $230 billion. FICA was $637 billion, SS payments were $405 billion. That's $232 billion, $2 billion more than the surplus.

http://www.issues2000.org/Background_Budget_&_Economy.htm

[papau]

151. Look at the official national debt numbers and note end of year is lower than begining - that is def

of having a true surplus and indeed the only real way to calculate the deficit for a given year.

[scarletwoman]

14. Because they're not "our" Democrats. They're Wall Street's Democrats, they're Corporate America's

Democrats. WE have hardly any Democrats that I would describe as "ours".

sw

[bobthedrummer]

15. Yep.

[Jim__]

16. Progressive, my ass! PPI is DLC.

Take a look. Look at the bio's.

[IndianaJones]

22. lmao. nt.

[...of J.Temperance]

157. Yeah, us DLCers ALREADY KNOW that PPI is a DLC affiliate

So it's not like as if you've discovered The Holy Grail or something and given people a Revelation.

There's nothing wrong with either the DLC or the PPI, at least we're thinking outside of the box about issues....we mightn't be able to find the solutions to everything, but at least we're willing to have discussions to do our best to brainstorm some key and very difficult issues that are facing people.

What you got? You want an echo-chamber or something? Echo-chambers NEVER solved ONE problem EVER.

[antigop]

19. The Nation: The Real Threat to Social Security

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990208/dreyfuss/4

Marron of PaineWebber is especially concerned about moderate Democrats, since the GOP is solidly lined up in favor of individual accounts, called PSAs in the jargon of Washington, for "personal savings accounts" or "personal security accounts," or PRAs, for "personal retirement accounts." Not long ago, Al From, the head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, had lunch with Marron and another PaineWebber official. The DLC, whose purpose is to realign the Democratic Party away from its traditional alliance with the AFL-CIO, is strongly leaning toward NCRP-style privatization. The November/December 1998 issue of The New Democrat, the DLC's bimonthly magazine, is filled with a series of pro-privatization stories under the heading "Less Than Secure: Rebuilding Social Security for the 21st Century"; it includes a piece by Senator Breaux outlining the commission's proposals.

[cuke]

29. The article is from 1999

and it's prediction of an impending sell out of SS never occurred. Not very credible

Also, the danger here is, as they put it "Though members of the alliance take somewhat varying approaches, all are agreed on the need to privatize at least some portion of the 12.4 percent FICA contribution taken out of wages. "

The problem isn't so much private accts (millions of people already have private savings accts of some form or another for retirement) as it is using some of the FICA taxes to fund them. What you fail to point out is that these accts do not take a penny out of FICA. It has absolutely zero effect on SS. It's nothing more than fear-mongering

[antigop]

30. Nice try. It's still on the DLC website. And yes, I really have work to do and won't play anymore.

n/t

[cuke]

33. And it's prediction never came true

And it's concern about using some of the FICA revenue for private accounts is absolutely irrelevant to these accts because they use absolutely no FICA money

And I give a shit whose website it's on. I can find wingnut websites that oppose this.

[Capn Sunshine]

28. There's lot of money in changing SS

from a gov't program to a privately administrated stock IRA type deal. Face it , unless there is a new influx of money to replace Baby Boomers $ as they gradually convert to bonds and other risk averse products, the Stock Market is screwed. They have spent two years now discouraging investment in Real Estate, BushCo has intentionally tanked the dollar to discourage a mass exodus of retirees to cheaper countries, and the final nail in valuations will be a glut of sell side orders.

The notion that SS is in trouble can certainly be in dispute, and a simple adjustment on the ceiling level of salaries would keep it solvent well into the 60s. Even as it stands, it's not SS that needs attention, it's Medicare. But ALL the candidates except Kucinich seem to have the wrong approach.

The problem is that the surplus accumulated intentionally from baby boomers to cover the problem of longevity ( Parents living longer) and numbers ( lots of Boomers , too few workers for 16 years) , which should have been LOCKED UP ( Al Gore was right again) was spent.

The echo boom will take care of the system later, but first we have to save it from the avaricious of both political parties.

By the way, I would make a ton of $ if they privatized SS. But it just isn't the thing to do. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet agree with me.

[cuke]

34. Wrong. There will be an increasing # of youngsters to fund Wall St

The "problems" (actually a right wing myth. SS is sound) of SS is the ratio of workers to retired, not their actual #'s

[Capn Sunshine]

38. Agree with your whole take

Problem is The Street has a problem with the concept of waiting. They want it NOW. The echo boom will definitelt TCB but not for another 10 yrs or so.

[cuke]

52. Wrong again

We have an abysmal savings rate. Savings is a Good Thing. And if it weren't for all the investment capital created by the expansion of 401k plans in the 1990's, there's a good chance that much of what you see on the Internet, including possibly DU, would not be here. These things wouldn't exist if there wasn't any money to invest in the companies that created all these neat technologies

[madfloridian]

62. All of our kids have 401Ks already.

No one forced them. They are there already. That is a lot of my point.

[madfloridian]

64. I correct myself...two changed to Roths.

My point is people who can save, usually do try to do so.

[cuke]

100. I'm glad to hear your children can AFFORD to save

so I guess it's OK to throw those who cant under the bus

[madfloridian]

103. Geez, what is wrong with you. So you want forced saving for those..

who can't afford to save? We have that....it is called Social Security. Why add another layer.

Good Lord, is there anything in the world I can say that you won't be ugly about?

Yes, some of our kids have money....some don't. Just like the real world.

[cuke]

105. More ignorant BS. It's a voluntary program

and SS is not a saving plan. What kind of wingnut websites have you been reading?

[madfloridian]

106. When you get through insulting folks, let me know.

I don't think you understood me, and I don't especially care right now.

You are going around DU just attacking.

I guess I just got in your line of fire.

[cuke]

107. I fart in the general direction of your ideas

[madfloridian]

109. You are so classy.

.

[cuke]

110. I'll be here all winter

[truedelphi]

182. Ten years ago, starting a business, I would have loved to have used the

Fifteen per cent that Soc Security took from me to do some decent advertising.

My business would have grown and I would have been much better off if I could have chosen whether or not to do Soc Security.

Than with the business successful, I could have started to seriously think abt what to do re: retirement savings. Etc.

I am LOVING yr definition of Social Security: Forced Savings for those who can't afford to save.

May I expand on it for a moment:
Social Security: Forced Savings for those who can't afford to save, in a way that guarantees nothing but worry that as they retire the government will already have "borrowed" the savings.
Or worse, government may have stolen this savings to help Wall Street.

[sandyd921]

120. Bingo!

A lot of this thread would fit best on the "DLC and Repuke-lite Underground"! We seem to have a contingent of DINO's on DU who buy Wall Street's propaganda about there not being enough $$$ to fund social security for the baby boomers. They fail to understand that the real problem is that they stole the surplus out from under us and that they are using this as an excuse for privatization schemes to further enrich the already grotesquely rich.

[...of J.Temperance]

158. But there isn't going to be enough money to fund

Social Security for the baby boomers....which is why it should be encouraged for people of 40 years-old and under, that they start NOW saving in a private savings account.

And nobody is talking about privatizing Social Security....people on DU already know that I'm DLC, and I'm totally opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Encouraging people to save for their retirement via private savings accounts ISN'T "privatizing Social Security"....what it is though, is being logical and pragmatic....the Social Security Fund is slowly drying up, certainly in 30 years time, IF something isn't done NOW to compensate for the lost revenue, then you're going to have millions of people retiring on a sub-standard retirement income.

[Jim Sagle]

63. K & R #5! U RRRRRAWWWWWK, madfloridian!!!

:headbang:

As to the "our Democrats" question, the answer is simple: those who promote this garbage are not our Democrats, they're corporate "Democrats."

[pattmarty]

65. Raise the cap to 125K, end of problem.

[RawMaterials]

180. Right on

:applause:

[EVDebs]

193. How about a progressive raising of the tax past the current $97,500 ?

Or the "doughnut" as Al Franken likes to call it, with a middleclass gap in there like with the medicare funding debate.

[hfojvt]

66. American Dream Accounts

They suck IMO

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/62

Even Alan Greenspan has been saying lately that there is no social security crisis.

BTW, supposedly I can retired at 62, according to my social security report. I get reduced benefits, but I figure it still pays off.

[madfloridian]

67. Great journal post. I missed that. Thanks for sharing.

:hi:

[The Backlash Cometh]

70. Probably like the CLEO group in Central Florida.

It's where the pro-business Dems meet and mingle with Republicans.

Good find madFloridian!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

86. Eliminate cap but create doughnut with tax being applied from 20,000 to 100,000

with no tax from a 100,000 to 200,000 then no cap after 200,000, let the 100 million dollar CEO's pick up some of the slack. This would probably cut the percentage for everyone.

[acmavm]

90. Oh shit. Just another corporatist/crooked politicians scheme to steal

what's been taken out of my check for decades. And that it comes from the DLC is only natural.

I've said over and over again on this board that the fabulous Clinton years were just a fable. Billy Boy rode in on the dot.com bubble and rode out of town as it burst. He was one lucky man to capitalize on a economic mirage. In the meantime he gave us NAFTA/CAFTA and killed life as we knew it for the American working man and woman.

Now we've got his wife trying to pretend that she's a friend of the working man/woman. Same old bullshit, another decade. Only she wants to help her friends to the money that was taken out of my paychecks for decades, money that I actually needed at the time but understood that someday would come back to me in my old age. What a pile of horseshit.

I have high blood pressure (on a good day 160/80, most days higher than that). I have had 8 TIAs and 2 major strokes. Maybe someone should just take like me out in a field and shoot us when we hit 65, right? Now that would solve all the DLC's problems. Then they'd have the money to pocket directly, wouldn't have to even keep up the pretense of trying to 'help' us the old croaks in the 'golden' years.

[MilesColtrane]

93. There's a problem with continuing to raise the retirement age.

People may be living longer in the future, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be able to work longer.

There's only a small chance that I'll physically be able to do what I do now to earn money at age 68.
That's assuming that anyone would hire me when I get that old.

[Honeycombe8]

99. The same reason why they're joining in the anti-Hillary campaign? Just a guess. nt

[madfloridian]

108. Why are Dems working with right wing groups and Lindsey Graham?

Instead of trying to put down people on this thread who see perfectly well that our Democrats DO intend to change Social Security.....answer the question of why they would team with someone like Graham when we have many Democrats they could work with.

Of course something is up about Social Security. It is just that they are being sneaky about presenting it.

[LWolf]

111. Because the PPI is in like company with

The Heritage Foundation et al, and the DLC's Orwellian campaign to associate themselves with the Democratic Party has been too successful.

This will come back to haunt the party in '08 if Democrats don't wake up and distance themselves from the DLC before the convention.

"We have learned the Left is NOT as powerful within the Democratic Party as we once thought."

I hope Democrats are convinced, then, that the left is not needed, because if this is the case, the left isn't going to be there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2153361

[...of J.Temperance]

160. The PPI/DLC are in league with The Heritage Foundation?! Lol!

You don't seriously believe that do you?

I actually DON'T know whether to laugh or what, your comment is stunningly preposterous.

[madfloridian]

164. Did you see the OP? Yes, they are working together to "fix" Social Security.

That is why I posted this.

[...of J.Temperance]

172. The PPI co-hosted a POLICY FORUM with them

That's radically different than being "in league with" The Heritage Foundation.

Nobody is "working together" to "fix" Social Security, everyone is just brainstorming and discussing different ideas....it's not a The Sky Is Falling type situation.

[madfloridian]

173. Lindsey Graham and Heritage Foundation...why include them

in Democratic planning for Social Security?

We can brainstorm with other Democrats.

[cuke]

176. b/c it's NOT "Democratic planning for Social Security"

[madfloridian]

181. Ah. there you go. Truth will out.

Apparently we are letting the Republicans control the message.

[LWolf]

187. I believe the term I used was "in like company." n/t

[sendero]

118. As skeptical as I am about a lot of these plans...

... the FACT is that something will have to change in about 10-15 years because the Federal Government will simply not be able to raise taxes enough to pay the projected benefits.

And, if you are one of those people who thinks that the government has been "investing" the surplus they've been collecting, well all I can say to you is BBWWWWaahaahahahahahahahahahaha!

[beachmom]

146. The first S-Chip bill to pass was bipartisan so sometimes that approach works

I'm not against Dems and Republicans getting together for the common good. The original s-chip bill was written by Kennedy & Kerry, but in order for it to have a prayer of passing, Kennedy worked with Orrin Hatch. The renewal of that plan passed the Senate with 67 votes, so it STILL has bipartisan support.

As far as social security goes, this is not only an American problem -- I know Germany has an even worse situation due to the aging population. You may be right that the proposed solution here is bad; but I have a feeling, between all of the other obligations our kids are being saddled with, social security (and more so -- Medicare) may end up being another big headache. It's best that people start thinking about it (and obviously NOT privatizing it).

[antigop]

152. Here is your answer, madfloridian....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/a_bipartisan_commission_with_t.html

A bipartisan commission that will submit a plan to Congress for an up or down vote...

The proposed escape seems at first so drearily familiar and demonstrably ineffective that it's hardly worth discussing: a bipartisan commission. But what would distinguish this commission from its many predecessors is that Congress would have to vote on its recommendations. The political theory is that, presented with a bipartisan package that cannot be amended, most politicians would do what they believe (privately) ought to be done rather than allow pressure groups, including retirees, to paralyze the process.
....
Two prominent proposals would adapt this approach to the budget. The first, offered by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N. D., and Judd Gregg, R-N. H., the chairman and ranking member of the Budget committee, would create a 16-member commission, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. All eight Democrats would be from Congress, as would six Republicans. The administration would have two members, including the secretary of the treasury.

Conrad's notion is that the impasse is political and only practicing politicians -- people with "skin in the game" -- can craft a compromise that can be sold to their peers. The commission would report in December 2008. Twelve of its 16 members would have to support the plan, with congressional passage needing 60 percent approval (60 senators, 261 representatives). These requirements, Conrad and Gregg argue, would ensure bipartisan support.

The other proposal comes from Reps. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., and Frank Wolf, R-Va. It would also create a 16-member commission, with two major differences. First, only four of its members would be from Congress. Second, though Congress would have to vote on the commission's proposal, there would be some leeway for others -- including the president -- to present alternatives as long as they had the same long-term budget impact. Any proposal, however, would have to be voted on as a package without amendments.

A combination of these plans might work best. A 20-member group would be manageable and should include four outsiders to provide different perspectives and, possibly, to build public support. Perhaps the head of AARP should be included. And it would be a mistake to present the next president with a take-it-or-leave-it package. The Cooper-Wolf plan would allow a new administration to make changes -- and get credit -- without being able to start from scratch.

[antigop]

153. Floor statements from Conrad and Gregg...Conrad: EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE

http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/statements/2007/fs_bipartisantaskforcefloorstat091807.pdf

Everything is on the table.
The task force would consist of 16 members, 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans, all of them Members
of Congress, except for 2 representing the administration. The Secretary of the Treasury would
chair the task force. The obligation of this group would be to submit a report on December 9,
2008. It would take 12 of the 16 members to report a blueprint for our fiscal future. They would
be given the responsibility to find ways to address the shortfall in Medicare and Social Security
and the ongoing and endemic budget deficits.
These 16 members, 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans, would have the opportunity and the
responsibility to develop a plan for our fiscal future, but it would take 12 of the 16 to report a
plan, and the plan would only come at the beginning of the next administration. This would not
be part of election year politics. This would be part of a serious plan to address our long-term
fiscal imbalances.
If 12 of the 16 agreed to a plan, it would then receive fast-track treatment in the Senate. It
would come to a vote without amendment after 100 hours of debate. Final passage would require
a supermajority, 60 votes in the Senate, 60 percent of the House of Representatives.
Senator Gregg and I have worked on this all year. We have discussed this with many
Members in both the House and the Senate. This is our best judgment of how best to proceed.
We believe this would give the Congress and the country an opportunity to write a better fiscal
future, one that would strengthen America, reduce our dependence on foreign capital and put us
in a position to keep the promise that has been made to the American people of a country that is
strong and fair, that respects those in retirement and, at the same time, gives maximum
opportunity to those working to strengthen their families and this country.

[madfloridian]

161. Thanks....just got your info. Will you make a separate post from those statements?

They really do verify my suspicions. They are planning to leave anyone out in the cold except their little committees. Screw the retirees.

[antigop]

162. Posted separately in General Discussion forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2157322&mesg_id=2157322

[cuke]

165. What does this have to with HRC's plan?

I don't see any connection between what some repuke wants and HRC's American Dream Accts proposal

[antigop]

166. HA! Go read the OP. n/t

[cuke]

168. You got nothing

COmpletely unable to defend, or even explain, yourself

[antigop]

169. HA! HA! HA! N/T

[EVDebs]

190. Bill Gates can collect social security ? Warren Buffett can collect social security and medicare ?

You'd think they'd be ashamed to.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

171. It's days like this I wish I had a dick...

so I could tell the "Progressive" Policy Institute to suck it.

Those folks gorge themselves on that "maggot pie" I talked about in the other thread....

[EVDebs]

192. FDR had to start Bank Holidays. Maybe Congress knows the crash is coming sooner than we'd think.

[me b zola]

195. Have you seen the new HRC ad?

"When George Bush threatened to privatize social security, Hillary was there every step of the way trying to stop him."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x65923


How is The American Dream Initiative any different then what the republicans were trying to shove down our throats? Are the other candidates who are preparing to debate tonight aware of this contradiction? Hillary shouldn't be allowed to avoid this, and the voters should be aware of her policy that doesn't square with her ad.