What will be the end result of Bush's Plan to destroy Social Security?

[UdoKier]

Poll question: What will be the end result of Bush's Plan to destroy Social Security?

What will be the end result of Bush's Plan to destroy Social Security?

[still_one]

1. When it passes, they won't realize the disaster until * is out of office

[NMDemDist2]

2. i voted fail but.....

it will take the nation's eye off Iraq and Iran which is the only reason the neocons are floating it right now

[independentchristian]

3. Even Ted Kennedy mentioned the word "compromise"

On Meet the Press this morning!

And what's up with Ted and the "raising taxes" comment?

Was he too stupid to clarify that he would be raising taxes on the "wealthy", not most americans?

Nooo, he just let the Russert "that's raising taxes" comment slide and said, "well."

Keep him off television. Blunders like that are uncalled for.

[Osamasux]

12. People earning $90 to $140k are doing well,

but are far from "wealthy".

[wadestock]

14. not when you consider.....

the average person is spending, not saving...
so...everyone on average is overextending themselves....adding to personal debt....and adding to the increased probability that once interest rates go up (mandated by the simple fact that the country's debt can't be financed into the future at ridiculously low interest rates)....all this borrowing and spending will come back to bite people intensely in the ass.

We have formed a culture of instant success and lack of thought about what the future should bring. In effect, the country suffers from cheap illusions of grandeur....aka Bushism.

[UdoKier]

17. Really? The top 10% of income earners in the richest country on earth...

Don't qualify as wealthy with you?

In your world, does one have to have a private helicopter and real $100 bill toilet paper to be rich?

[Osamasux]

19. Yes, welcome to reality.

Will you be staying long? :eyes:

[sandnsea]

20. They're wealthy

Only in America would people without a financial care in the world claim they aren't wealthy. I think that's another little Republian myth that needs to get flushed right down the toilet too.

[Osamasux]

25. 90k to 140k = without a financial care in the world ?

That is completely uninformed. That's middle class to maybe upper middle class. It is not even in the neighborhood of wealthy. This is what police captains, school district administrators and successful electricians earn. I'm not going to bother arguing the point anymore.

[stevedeshazer]

29. Because you lost n/t.

[sandnsea]

33. No, it is not

If people can't buy food, make the mortage, buy two cars, pay the basic bills, and get health insurance on that income; they're fucking pathetic. Anybody who doesn't know how good they have it on that income is just a selfish asshole. How many snowblowers and leafblowers and grass vacuumers do people really need anyway? They're wealthy by the standards of 80% of America and 99.9% of the world. And they have the extra benefit of having enough disposable income to invest and create even more wealth. They really need to get a clue.

[davekriss]

28. Did Kennedy suggest ...

...we should rollback the Bush tax giveaway for just this group? I didn't see the interview. However, I'm sure he did not.

FYI, the entry point for the top 1% of incomes in the U.S. is something like $340,000 per year, and these households have on average several million in net worth. These households are geniunely "wealthy" in my book.

I think $90,000 gets you in at about the top 15% of incomes; $140,000 gets you in the top 7% (a few years ago). While this segment is affluent, it is hardly "wealthy". Not comparatively, by first-world western standards.

However, I am unsure what your point was (to single out 90k to 140k they way you did...?).

[Osamasux]

31. I was referring to the talk to raise the maximum income level FICA

tax is charged on. That is the range I hear opponents of Bush's plan are looking at. I believe the current cap is $87,000, and they would raise that to $140,000. The rate could stay the same at 6.2%.

That may be all it takes to fix SS, not Bush's half-assed investment account sham. I would be all for that and means testing, but means testing is always a tough sell. My hopes are for whatever it will take and whatever they can pass.

[davekriss]

32. Very good

Yes, that is all it would take to close the gap. Or slight moves up in GDP (the CBO used 2.5% yearly growth, while the SSA used 1.8%, I think -- an average GDP of 3% means we could increase benefits, assuming that the GDP was earned in America and not mostly the outsourced profits of the owning class!).

Shame, really, that we would borrow a relatively certain $4 trillion in the first 20 years to close an uncertain $3.7 trillion from 2042-2052 to 2075.

[papau]

21. Ted made clear that raising taxes meant the wage cap - I do not

believe anyone listening or reading the transcript would not understand.

[snippy]

4. If it passes, future generations of retirees will move in with their kids.

The greedy young republicans are going to hate that.

[Cleita]

5. Other

You won't get any SS, but you still will have payroll taxes deducted from your wages. You didn't think they would let that money tree die, did you?

[xray s]

6. A monster will emerge out of committee and pass

Senate Democrats will join with Republicans and pass a really good Social Security bill that will differ very slightly from the House version and go to committee. Bush will go around the country touting he saved Social Security. Then, a Frankenstein monster will emerge from committee, that will gut social security benefits and transfer complete control of the system to Halliburton, Ken Lay and the former managers of Arthur Anderson. All Social Security assets will be funneled through old Enron bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. The bill will be released at midnight, at which time Dick Cheney will rule that filibusters are no longer allowed in the Senate. The bill will be passed on near party line vote at 3:05am (with Jeffords voting against and Lieberman voting for).

The media will not report on any of this, since Bush already took his victory lap and it was "old news" anyway.

[mikehiggins]

7. I'm older than most on this site, I'm fairly certain, and I think

this is the worst mistake the Commander-in-Chimp could ever make.

All this trouble and all this expense for a plan that even the GOP admits won't make a bit of difference to the overall SocSec problem in the long run?

Even the AARP is deadset against this one, and the Daily News in NYC ran a publisher's editorial ripping the whole thing apart.

Compromise? A democrat who compromises is a total asshole on this topic. This one has to be fought to the death.

Whenever some sleazeball like Stepanopoulous (whatever) demands what the Democratic "alternative" is, the Dems have to hammer them with the case that the GOPukes have yet to make THEIR case make sense.

Actually, I think this has to be done on the net and in the neighborhoods. The Beltway Dems still seem to be holding desperately onto their fantasies that this will all go away if they only talk nicely enough.

The only thing likely to go away is the Democratic Party itself.

[Eric J in MN]

8. The Democratic alternative is the Social Security system we have now

and have for the past 69 years.

It's projected to be solvent for more years into the future than ever before.

If it needs to be tweaked decades from now, so be it. It's been tweaked before.

[tabasco]

18. "This one has to be fought to the death." DAMN STRAIGHT.

Clinton, Carter, all the big guns need to step up. This is the time to stop the continued thievery by the corrupt republicans. If the Democrats don't fight tooth and nail to stop this obviously ill-intentioned effort by the republicans - I will find it difficult to consider myself a Democrat any longer. I handed out pamphlets for Hubert Humphrey when I was 13, and have been a Democrat since, but I will abandon the party if they do not fight this to the death, as you stated.

Win or lose - we must fight this effort to turn the USA into a banana republic.

[davekriss]

30. Yes, all the big guns need to step up!

I agree with this wholeheartedly!

PS/ I voted for Hubert Humphrey! (In a grade school mock election. HH won hands down over Nixon.)

[Eric J in MN]

9. A scenario which concerns me is that it doesn't pass within 2 years,

because of a filibuster, but through means fair-or-foul, the Republicans get 60 Senate seats in 2006.

[wadestock]

10. Bankruptcy Bankruptcy Bankruptcy Bankruptcy Bankruptcy

The country will go bankrupt far sooner than any cuts in social security will have any effect.

Look for interest on the debt to exceed 500B by the time Bush leaves office....caused by higher interest rates caused by Bush's mismanagement of the economy....as other countries and other investors laugh at trying to finance this uncontrollable debt at ridiculously low interest rates.

Guess what freepers....

Looks like your really can't get your cake and eat it too.
You slimy self righteous greedy bastards....you've destroyed the country I love.

[Osamasux]

11. They will shore up Social Security, as they need to.

Private Accounts will not pass, but there will be some cut in benefits. Bush will take credit. The newly energized Democratic leadership will bash him constantly throughout, so most people don't give Bush credit.

[More Than A Feeling]

13. This could be our chance to regain the house

At the end of Bush's tour, he will discover that, shock of shocks, no one trusts him anymore, and elected republicans don't need him. I will be surprised if this even gets out of committee, much less goes down on the floor. Bush will pretend like it never happened, but he can't pretend he still has any political capital. He will be ineffective and ridiculous the rest of his term, especially when he attempts to resurrect himself by tying himself even more tightly to the religious right.

every republican in the house who doesn't come out against this is going to be in for the fight of their lives. They might have retained control, except that fundraising efforts led by the mighty Howard Dean gave Democrats the country over glittering war chests, and his grassroots organizing created new and credible candidates against Republican incumbents who never thought they'd face a credible challenge ever again.

In the senate, things are not quite as disastrous for Republicans as they manage to retain control, but Dems still have enough for a filibuster.

These election results seal Bush's fate. He no longer has the House living in his asshole and he has alienated the moderates in his party, who respond by going Dem in 2008. The Presidential ticket of Wes Clark/Evan Bayh wins convincely, and begins the long and arduous task of pulling our country out of the dark ages.

[sellitman]

16. What are you smoking?

Nothing changes until we regain National control of the voting machines and their source code. We will be beaten and beaten again. In in few more years we will hold less than 10% of the government if that much.

Purify the vote or beware !

[autorank]

26. He's smoking some good psychic stuff. He happens to be right.

AARP is full out against this and that's not because the Gingrich plant is against it. The membership is up in arms and already smokin. Stop being so farking negative. We're all Democrats here and we need to recognize real opportunities. Social Security is the THIRD RAIL because it is a no bull shit proposition. You can vote away all sorts of stuff for social issues but when it comes to retirement anticipated, there is no wavering. Everyone in this country gets a print out every year on what they'll get. They know nonsense when they see it. Watch our machine come back to life.

[whistle]

15. The plunder and profit motive are driving the republicans to....

...steal social security now and they will not stop until they have taken it away and lined their pockets with the surpluses and torn up the $2.5 trillion in IOUs that Bush has already stolen and distributed to the rich. To have social security reform defeated is to have the Bush fraud exposed, they will not allow that.

[radwriter0555]

22. oh it will pass. The gop nazis have bullied the dems into submission. The

New Americanazi banker pals of bush will loot and pillage and make a killing, stealing the investments, then requiring you the taxpayer to pay it all back.

[bunkerbuster1]

23. Put me down for "pink tutu"

I sincerely believe the House and Senate Dems should ride this piratization to victory. It should be a winning issue, and it can be.

But if I had to bet, I'd have to say that they'll probably crack and work out some "third way" with their republican "colleagues" and allow for some Piratization Lite. Just a token amount of diverted funds; merely a hundred billion or so each year.

Bush will claim victory, the Dems will get snakebitten yet again.

That's what I fear will happen. I know it doesn't have to be like this.

[unlawflcombatnt]

24. Social Security & Republican Media Intimidation

The RNC has threatened FCC action against TV stations exposing Bush's deceptive Social Security plans. The letter was intended as an indirect threat that their FCC licenses were in jeopardy. South Bend television stations received the letter from RNC attorney Michael Bayes, stating "As an FCC licensee...this letter places you on notice..." The following is a copy of the story by James Wensits from the South Bend Tribune from February 5, 2005:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/02/05/local.20050205-sbt-MWKA-A1-RNC_asks_stations_to.sto

"RNC asks stations to kill 'false TV ad'
MoveOn.org defends accuracy of Social Security spot.

By JAMES WENSITS
Tribune Political Writer

SOUTH BEND -- At least part of the Social Security debate focused on the 2nd Congressional District again Friday, as the Republican National Committee sent letters to local television stations asking them not to air what it calls a "false TV ad" promoted by MoveOn.org.

Washington, D.C.-based MoveOn.org immediately issued a statement defending the accuracy of its ad, which began airing on local stations Tuesday and which is critical of the president's plan to revamp Social Security.

The RNC letter drew a mixture of responses. One local station executive said he viewed the tone of the letter as "threatening." Another said he planned to investigate a statement in the ad and might decide to pull the spot if he found it to be misleading.

The national ad, titled "Working Retirement," debuted on local stations Tuesday.

"It has come to our attention that your station is currently airing, or may be asked to air, a false advertisement sponsored by a political organization known as MoveOn.org," said the RNC letter sent to local stations on Friday.

"The advertisement in question falsely and maliciously makes reference to 'George Bush's planned Social Security benefit cuts of up to 46 percent to pay for private accounts ...' "

In his State of the Union address, the president said that "Social Security will not change in any way" for Americans 55 and older."

The RNC letter said that "what MoveOn.org calls 'Bush's planned Social Security benefit cuts' is actually a plan that would hold starting Social Security benefits steady in purchasing power, rather than allowing them to nearly double over the next 75 years as they are projected to do under the current benefit formula."

The letter was signed by RNC Deputy Counsel Michael Bayes.

Jim Behling, general manager for WNDU-TV, said he is neither afraid nor cowed by getting a letter from a lawyer at the RNC, but may pull the spot if he determines that it is inaccurate. The ad contract calls for the spot to end its run on Sunday, according to Behling.

"It's about what's fair," said Behling, adding, "If we made the wrong decision based on insufficient information, then we have to correct ourselves."

Behling said he has reviewed documentation supplied by MoveOn.org in support of the ad, and said the 46 percent figure seems to apply to people who will retire in 2075, and therefore haven't yet been born.

He said he plans to ask MoveOn.org if the 46 percent "applies to anybody living today" and, if not, may decide to pull the spot.

According to supporting documents supplied to the stations by MoveOn.org, the plan which serves as the model for the president's proposal would cut benefits because it changes the basis on which benefits would be calculated from wage levels to consumer price levels.

Based on Social Security Administration data, a worker born in 1977 who earned average wages and retired in 2042 would see benefits 26 percent lower than under the current benefit structure, $14,432 a year instead of $19,423 in 2004 dollars. An individual who retired in 2075 would receive monthly benefits 46 percent lower than under the current structure, the documents said.

Tom Matzzie, Washington, D.C., director of MoveOn.org, said in a statement issued Friday that the information referred to in the spot is based on an analysis performed by the chief actuary at the Social Security Administration, and said his organization stands by the ad.

"Instead of threatening TV stations and trying to infringe on the free-speech rights of MoveOn.org," said Matzzie, the administration should "come clean" and explain how big benefit cuts will be for future retirees, how much new debt will be required and how much financial services corporations will profit from the proposal.

Kevin Sargent, vice president and general manager for WSJV-TV, said he viewed the RNC letter as threatening.

The last two paragraphs of the letter said:

"As an FCC licensee, you have a responsibility to exercise independent editorial judgment to oversee and protect the integrity of the American marketplace of ideas, and to avoid broadcasting deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be taken seriously and I urge you to decline to broadcast this advertisement.

"This letter places you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading. Your station should act responsibly and refrain from airing this advertisement."

"When a letter says 'this letter places you on notice,' " Sargent said, "that's kind of threatening."

Sargent said the letter didn't say that the RNC intended to go after the station's license, but "that kind of tactic is done to make you think it's possible."

Asked if he planned to pull the ad, Sargent said he had just begun to investigate, noting, "It's Friday afternoon."

Sargent said that in the meanwhile, he did not plan to suspend the ad, which is scheduled to run through Monday.

Todd Schurz, president and general manager of WSBT-TV, said it is not the role of the station to make political judgments, and to do so would be "grossly inappropriate."

"Our role is to be sure that the laws and regulations are followed and that the public has access to its own airwaves," Schurz said.

Schurz said the station began an investigation after receiving the RNC letter Friday afternoon but did not know when it would be completed.

"These things take a little time," Schurz said, adding that there was no intent to suspend the ad in the meantime. The spot is scheduled to run through Monday on WSBT-TV, whose parent company, Schurz Communications, also owns The Tribune."


The Bush aministration is continuing it's efforts to completely suppress the media. I urge everyone to write to your Congress and the local media about this story. Also, I would recommend republishing this article everywhere possible.

Mike

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________

[autorank]

27. Time to SUCK IT UP, ***Stop the Negativism & Nihilism***

OK, this is the New Deal program of all New Deal programs. It's also a damn outstanding program.

What do the doubters here think--political crooks and trends go on for ever. Thats ridiculous. There have been crooks in the past and they run out of steam. There have been religious revivals in the past which involved political action and they ran out of steam. History is not a straight line, it runs in cycles.

Cycles turn and this one will turn when we stop whining and open up with every single bit of determination and anger on this issue.

Now is the time. Write your congressional representatives on a regular basis even if you think they useless (the staff talk and the word will get out).

[Jose Diablo]

34. It will pass

The republicans will force it through and the DLC Dems will show their true colors and stop any lock down by the Dems.

This congress will kill the new deal. The DLC will pat itself on their backs and be very richly rewarded by corporations. They will then retire very wealthy.

No Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.