Here is how Democrats put Bush & Repubs on defensive on Social Security

[kentuck]

Here is the Democratic plan that will lock their bowels and put them to sputtering in the corner. It is a simple plan that will work. It is a plan that will save Social Security and strengthen our economy. My hope is that the Democrats present it tomorrow.

First of all, we raise the cap on wages to $150,000 of income. That will take care of at least 50% of the problem. Where does the other 50% come from, you may ask? And this is the part that locks their bowels. The other part for fixing Social Security comes from rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cut for the wealthy. One-third of his taxcut, along with the cap increase, will save Social Security into the next century. End of "crisis".

The remainder of the rollback of the taxcut should be to finance the war in Iraq. We cannot continue to spend trillions of dollars on the credit card just so Bush's wealthy friends can have their tax cut. We should call for the immediate repeal of that irresponsible and harmful bit of generosity for the wealthy. It was irresponsible to give such a huge taxcut at he same time you plan on going to war. It was foolish and harmful.

No doubt, this will put the Repubs on the defensive. They would never expect the Democrats to ask for the repeal of the taxcut. Just when they are wanting to make them permanent. Repeal the taxcut! That should be our battlecry. Go on the offensive!

[Betsy Ross]

1. why should there be any cap SS wages? n/t

[kentuck]

2. Everytime they complain...

We could raise the cap by $25,000...:)

[whistle]

3. Good plan, all we have to do is get back 20 seats in the senate

...and a majority in the house to carry it out. The fastest way to do that is for war crimes trials to begin ASAP!

[kentuck]

4. That is how we get back the House. REPEAL THE TAXCUT!!!!!!

This should be the Democratic response to every question. If the media asks about the war on terror, REPEAL THE TAXCUT !!!

[Old and In the Way]

5. I totally agree.

Get the charts out and show the American people. In fact, I think your recommendations would increase the pot substantially. Show the American people that, not only will we fix it, but we can make it qualitatively better in payout. And it's all guaranteed. And we aren't borrowing $2TT we don't have to give it to the financial industry, either.

Another point about Social Security. The money is invested in US Treasuries, correct? Isn't that the foundation of our financial credibility? If we're not investing in our country's future, who will be?

[whistle]

6. "....foundation of our financial credibility" is not our US Treasuries

...but our ability to pay our debts.

The Social Security surplus was never supposed to be used to cover federal spending deficits. If the U.S. Treasury dipped into the Social Security surplus it was to do so ONLY to pay down the national debt. Instead, for the last four years Bush has used to surplus from SS to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy and the big corporations, finance his war adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and pay for neo-conservative federal pork barrel programs. What Bush has been doing by skimming off SS surpluses is totally illegal and is exactly what got Enron and other big corporations into financial hot water. The accounting professionals who have gone along with it should be criminally prosecuted along with the treasury secretaries and the Greenspan, head of the federal reserve.

Bush now wants to cover his tracks by busting Social Security and hiding all of the illegal IOUs he has incurred. He was correct last evening when he said Social Security is in trouble, but he fail to tell the truth as to why it is in trouble. His irresponsible spending has put it there!

[kentuck]

7. Starting with LBJ...

when SS was first used as "general revenue", does anyone know how much of the SS fund was spent by Democratic presidents and how much was spent by Republican Presidents? My hunch is that a large percentge of the SS fund has been spent under the budgets of Republican presidents?

[whistle]

11. Well if this practice goes back to LBJ, then it would by default

...be dominated by republican abuses since they have controlled the White House for more years than Democrats have:

1961-63 JFK (3)
1963-68 LBJ (5)
1969-74 Nixon (6)
1974-76 Ford (2)
1977-80 Carter(4)
1981-88 Reagan(8)
1989-92 Bush I(4)
1993-00 Clinton(8)
2001-08 BushII(8)

Total (20) (28)

The republicans have had their way for 28 of the last 48 years.

[cyn2]

8. why not remove the cap totally?

Would solve the problem.

[cyn2]

9. Great article on this....

Saw this on another thread. Clearest article I've read on Social Security. It's in the Christian Science Monitor by one of my favorite bloggers, Kevin Drum.

Social Security crisis? Not if wealthy pay their wa

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p09s01-coop.htm

[kentuck]

10. You could do that but....

would that alone increase the revenues needed to help with the "real" crisis, the huge spending and deficits by the Republicans. We are operating on borrowed time. We need revenues. So you have a good point. Why should the wealthiest,who got the most from the huge Bush taxcut, be exempt from paying for the huge deficits?? Repeal the taxcuts would be my first strategy, then if they balked on that, raise the cap or remove it entirely. There are several options open to the Democrats that they should present to the public as their "plan"....

[whistle]

12. Correct, no cap, no problem, still could do the privitization....

...transition also.

[Just Me]

13. Yes. The wealthy owes this country a due for the opportunity to be,..

,...filthy rich. Corporations owe a debt to the American people without whom corporations could not exist or survive.