Excellent comments by Kerry on "SS Privitization" on Russert Today!

[KoKo]

Russert went at him quoting crap from the "Concord Commission" and other statements Kerry made years ago, in typical Russert fashion...and Kerry blew him away with this from the transcript. I thought this was Kerry at his best..and particularly in this interview where he said exactly what needed to be said about the Bushies planned attack on SS. If the Democrats can stick to this then we can rout the Bushies. Read the rest of transcript it's at the very end ...I could only get these snips to be in the rules:

From the transcript:

SEN. KERRY: Precisely what I said in 1996 is "We should consider" a number of these things. We did consider them. I considered them. Others did. I rejected them. And I have said again and again throughout the campaign this last year, I do not believe we have to raise the retirement age. I'm not in favor of it. I am absolutely opposed to cutting benefits, and I believe we can save Social Security in any number of ways, Tim, other than what President Bush wants to do.

President Bush is hyping a phony crisis. The crisis in America today is 45 million Americans who don't have health care. The crisis are 11 million children that I just talked about that we ought to be covering with health care. You know, Social Security does not run out as the president says and become bankrupt in 2018. It can pay 100 percent of the benefits until 2042, and after 2042, it can pay 80 percent of the benefits. And all you need to do to move Social Security into safety, well into the 22nd century, into the next century, is to roll back part of George Bush's tax cut today. His tax cut takes three times the deficit of what is contained in Social Security.

Now, there are any number of other things that you could do to try to fix it smart. What President Bush wants to do is put at risk something that has stood up not as an investment program but an insurance program, an insurance against poverty. Without Social Security, 50 percent of seniors would be in poverty. Without Social Security, people with disabilities, widows, orphans, children would not get help. And the president is willing to put that at risk so that you have $940 billion in fees that go to Wall Street and a whole bunch of young people get to invest money in who knows what, and there's no guarantee that money will be there for them in their lifetime.

MR. RUSSERT: But people you know...

SEN. KERRY: It's a bad program...

MR. RUSSERT: People you know...

SEN. KERRY: ...and we should oppose it.

MR. RUSSERT: People you know and respect--Bob Kerrey, Democratic senator; Warren Rudman, former Republican senator...

SEN. KERRY: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...Pete Peterson, Concord Coalition--said this is it, straight out. "Ensuring a more sustainable system will require change, meaning that someone is going to have to give up something-- either in the form of higher contributions, lower benefits or a combination of both. No Social Security reform will succeed unless this fact is acknowledge up front."

SEN. KERRY: Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: You're saying raise taxes by rolling back the top bracket. You're raising taxes on richer Americans to pay for Social Security.

SEN. KERRY: Well, Tim, you can call it what you want. I mean, if you think rolling back to the level that we had in the 1990s, when an awful lot of our friends made an awful lot of money and people did very well in America--if you think that's raising taxes, then you can go ahead and have that definition. I think it's rolling back. I think it's rolling them back to a level of responsibility.

What you have today is irresponsibility. The president is going to add $4 trillion to the debt of this nation just with his tax cut, which is $1.9 trillion over the next 10 years, and his Social Security plan, which is about $1.6 trillion. It's almost $4 trillion, just in those two choices the president is making. Now, you can look at--look at this headline. Here's a headline that ought to send shudders through America: Central Banks Shun U.S. Assets. This was last week in The Financial Times. Why are they shunning U.S. assets? Because of the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration. And the president's plan on Social Security is not only dangerous for Social Security, it's dangerous for the fiscal long-term health of our country.

Now, I'm for creating wealth with young people. I think they have a right to try to have better means of being able to put money away for retirement. But there are plenty of ways to do it without privatizing, without putting it at risk. If the president would say to us, "Look, let's all get together and make sure Social Security is going to be saved the way President Clinton did, for the long term, and we're going to do it without privatizing it but we'll find one of these ways of doing it that's responsible," we will be at the table and we will join him to depoliticize it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/6886726/

[Darkhawk32]

1. Bush's plan is a recipe to Enron-like national financial disaster...n/t

[aquart]

2. Good. He said "privatizing."

[underpants]

3. A great exchange -they were almost yelling at each other

at least for Kerry that was almost yelling and way more vitriolic than MTP ever is.

I thought Kerry did very well. He still has his way of saying things that can be refined but over all he did great. Very cool and very intelligent.

[Clarkie1]

4. should have used "investment in the future" "deficit spending" not "tax"

"...well into the 22nd century, into the next century, is to roll back part of George Bush's deficit spending and invest in the future. His deficit spending takes three times the deficit of what is contained in Social Security."

We really need to get our framing straight.

[liberal N proud]

5. I would like to have seen that. Kerry should have been like this last fall

He should have been going after these whores during the campaign.

[KoKo]

7. It was Kerry at his Best!

He's very uncomfortable talking about Iraq...and Vietnam. It get's all twisted up when he's asked about it. That was his biggest problem, imho. He's so conflicted... I wish he could have blasted that pig Russert on SBLiars and the rest. But overlooking that...the SS part of the interview (or "interrogation" by Pig Russert) was his shining moment to go at the Bushies on an issue he's very comfortable with and he hammered him... It was great!

[panhandle]

6. There is a problem with Social Security

An excellent editorial in today's Washington Post. At what point will we finally realize that there is a serious problem with Social Security and act accordingly?

Democrats in Denial

By Steven Rattner
Sunday, January 30, 2005; Page B07

In his 1998 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton waved his pen at the assembled Congress and declared that we must "save Social Security first." Democrats have since generally clung to that vision.

But now, in an ill-conceived effort to derail President Bush's privatization initiative, many prominent Democrats are suddenly dismissing the notion of a Social Security crisis or even a Social Security problem. Instead of offering sensible alternatives to the president's flawed proposals, Democrats are devoting their energies to attacking both the president's ideas and any notion of altering the Social Security construct.

We can debate endlessly what constitutes a "crisis" but not that Social Security faces a major financial challenge. According to actuarial estimates by the system's trustees, Social Security costs will begin to exceed revenue beginning in 2018 -- not so far off.

That would have been less daunting had we saved the very substantial Social Security surpluses of the past two decades. Instead, we mostly spent them, particularly in the past four years, leaving behind a much-touted Social Security trust fund that is, in reality, a myth.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[underpants]

8. a) you can't post whole articles here b)different times different options

All of the proposals that were put forward where in the context of a budget surplus (I know it was only on paper) so you can't compare what the two. Maybe W should just consider doing what Reagan did and raise the payroll tax........Reagan raised taxes??? Yes he cut them (over all) 4 times and raised them 4 times.

[panhandle]

12. What???

That makes absolutely no sense at all. The Social Security "Trust Fund" is separate from the federal budget (although our brave representatives have used the surpluses from the fund for nearly 20 years to mask the true cost of overall spending) and is not affected by either a budget surplus or deficit.

With respect to increasing payroll taxes, that has some merit. But how much additional surplus with this provide? I have heard it would reduce the future funding deficit by only approximately 45%.

[Clarkie1]

9. The problem is Bush's deficit spending

"That would have been less daunting had we saved the very substantial Social Security surpluses of the past two decades. Instead, we mostly spent them, particularly in the PAST FOUR YEARS, leaving behind a much-touted Social Security trust fund that is, in reality, a myth."

Instead of wasting the social security trust fund on giveaways to the rich, Bush should have been investing in the future of social security if he really gave a damn about it. He doesn't. He only wants to reward his coroporate base, which loves this idea.

The fiscal irresponsibility of this administration is destroying our democracy by rewarding and empowering multi-national corporations that care only about their bottom line, not America's.

[panhandle]

11. Investing in what?

What would you have had any administration (Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush) invest the Social Security surplus in?

[Clarkie1]

13. In the social security trust fund! n/t

[panhandle]

14. Trust Fund??

You do realize that there is no trust fund, right? Receipts into the fund are almost immediately used to purchase Treasury bonds.

[underpants]

17. Like the bills in your wallet?

Those are treasury notes too. Are you willing to part with them? Are they "worthless"?

If the US government defaults on the SS Treasury notes they whole thing falls apart and I mean the whole economy. We trust paper in this country (as do others) like deeds and car registrations and the like.

In response to your post above-all of the proposals included using surpluses to sure up social security. You are right SS is not in the budget so those surpluses didn't include SS outlays.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Amen and look at who wrote this article--someone with a vested interest

in private accounts.

"The writer is managing principal of Quadrangle Group LLC, a private investment firm."

[many a good man]

18. What's wrong with investing the surplus in T-bonds?

Aren't they the most rock solid investment on the planet? If there were no SS I would first invest my money in the safest, soundest, most secure investiment there is-- one backed by the full faith and confidence of the US government. Once my basic needs are met I could invest the rest in less safe, higher returning investments.

panhandle is dangling a common right wing piece of propaganda saying that there is no "trust fund." The fiscally irresponsible right wing is borrowing that money to finance their reckless foolishness. At some point in the future it must be paid back, guaranteeing that decades from now the US will have to have higher taxes and a fraction of the benefits as our European competitors.

The policies of this administration are going to ruin this country for generations to come.

[panhandle]

28. They are invested in T-Bonds!!!

First, by statute any surplus received by the Trust is invested in Treasury bonds - essentially an IOU. According to the latest annual report of the Trustees the surplus for 2004 was $64.4 billion dollars.

Second, the Clinton Administration borrowed in its first five years just like the current Bush Administration is doing now. If you want to blame anyone, blame Congress; remember, they control the power of the purse.

Third, there really is no Trust Fund. You can not go to your local Social Security office and ask for a lump sum withdrawal - as you could with a 410(k) or IRA. The system was designed to be pay-as-you-go. Benefits will begin to exceed revenues in 2018. Any surpluses currently going into the system - those IOU's - will allow the system to meet benefits until 2042. After that, well......

[Moderator]

16. panhandle please read

in the future please limt your snips of articles to
4 paragraphs as per the Democratic Underground
Copyright rules .

[panhandle]

29. Read

Thank you for the notice. I was unaware, but will abide in future.

[indypaul]

21. Sit down and

have another glass of Kool-Aid. Invite Cavuto,
the Fox so called business reporter, to your
next writing session. He can fill you in on
the latest propaganda straight from the White
House B.S. artists.

[Sparkly]

25. Well isn't that weird.

First of all, the author complains that Democrats aren't suggesting alternatives (they always say that) and then he mentions alternatives Democrats have already put forward.

By the way, have Republicans stopped whining about how Bill Clinton "passed" (yeah I know) the "largest tax increase in history" by "raising taxes on Social Security?" No doubt that's still floating around AOL boards.

Kerry, in the interview transcribed in the OP, also proposed rolling back tax cuts on the wealthiest. And this author helpfully suggests Democrats ought to propose increasing revenue -- well, hello!!

[KoKo]

30. Quadrangle Group, LLC, just can't wait to get into your undies...so

it can use your money and then leave you holding the bag. You don't even know if Quadrangle Group,LLC will be around when you are old and decrepit, need dental implants, cataract surgery, assisted living, or your children have been thrown out of work and need you to help them survive. You might have lost your investments because "Quadrangle Group, LLC invested in an Enron II, Global Crossing II or in the latest wild IPO which came out promising riches. They cooked the books the stock or bonds crashed and you are left holding the bag with a couple of dollars left in your pocket hoping to do a shareholders lawsuit against Quadrangle Group, LLC.

The Japanese and Chinese are the biggest holders of our Treasury Bonds and with our Debt they will hold more and more, unless Bush rolls back the tax cuts he gave the over $200,000 crowd of CEO's and Robber Barons when he came into office. You have to hope that if you reach the time you need some money that there's something there you can count on if you think you can invest in something as safe as Social Security that's locked away with a guaranteed return no matter whether you threw your money away on Hummers and Plasma TV's or you had the misfortune of working hard but having a catastrophic accident or illness and could never work again. And, if you have children and something happens to you they at least will have food and a roof over their head with SS Benefits but I don't think you can count on "Quadrangle Group LLC" to offer you the same, if misfortune visits you or you just can't control your spending habits. :shrug:

[OneTwentyoNine]

33. BS article by an INVESTMENT firm...WHAT CRAP

As Kerry said and can be verifed SS is SOLVENT until 2042,and thats if we did NOTHING until 2042. In 2018 baby-boomers like myself will begin to retire,that doesn't mean the system runs out of money on Dec 31,2018.

This is just more "terra" Bush style to line pockets of people like Quadrangle Group LLC. What bullshit,yet ANOTHER pack of LIES foisted off on Americans for profit.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[gizmo1979]

10. Just another way

to get more money in the hands of the rich.I have a question for them,how do you know when you have enough money?Is it like monopoly when everyone else is broke?

[LittleClarkie]

22. Yeah, how come I never get Marvin Gardens

I always end up with one of the purple ones.

No fair.

[gizmo1979]

38. Me too what's up with that!

[moggie12]

15. kerry did great in this exchange

he hit hard on the deficit and on Bush's irresponsible tax breaks..... good for him....

[Kahuna]

19. Kerry always does well on MTP. He knows how to handle tim. nt

[roseBudd]

23. I like, if it was a memme it would be Bush is a fiscal lunatic

And why wouldn't he be? He has never been responsible for anything that was a success. Being an MBA student in the 60s does not prepare one to be president. Notice I said MBA student, not a CEO. This is not the first CEO administration this is the firt MBA student administration.

[KoKo]

24. Kick for Kerry doing great ...and Chimp is kiking off his SS SOU Address

this week where he's going to get all the under 35 somethings slavering over his Stock Market Boondoggle.

Kerry did a good thing today...and I hope the rest of the Dems take his lead on this. As "tongue tied" as Kerry can get over "War Issues" on SS and Health Care...he's an Incredible Articulator....

Let's stand for Kerry and others on this one...We can beat the Chimp here...let's go get 'em!

[marcologico]

26. Kerry nailed Fatboy's head to the floor on this one. n/t

[despairing optimist]

27. Mr. Russert: Aw, Senator Kerry, I wanna buy my yacht!

Poor Tim's just getting his first millions, and here comes Kerry spoiling the fun. Must have been a hard morning on Meet the Press.

Sorry, Tim. You can't always get what you want.

[proudbluestater]

31. I have two emotions, great pride in Kerry's handling of the situation

and get disgust with Russert who I used to like. Now I think he needs a swift kick in the ass.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Like Kerry said, there is no crisis in Social Security

but that we need to get rid of Bush's tax cuts to make SS secure into the 22nd century!

Bush governs by fear!

[noel711]

34. Despite his flaws....

I still miss the presence of JK in the mainstream media.
Compare his "flaws" to those of Bushie, I'd still choose JK>

[OneTwentyoNine]

35. Aww....Little Timmy worried about the welfare of guys like Limbaugh..

How fucking touching of you Tim. Your worried that Limbaugh who makes $25 million a year might have to pay in a bit more to keep SS solvent well beyond 2042.

WHY is that ass allowed on NBC when its SO blantly obvious that he's nothing but a RW shill who's given plenty of air time?!?!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

37. What we have today is irresponsibility.

That sums it up. Kerry is awesome.