Why are our Democratic legislators letting us down on Social Security?

[jswordy]

I mean, preserving the program at full benefit levels is as simple as this:

1.) Raise or eliminate the $87,500 ceiling on payments into it.

...or...

2.) Apply a means test to receiving benefits. Why should mogul Bill Gates get the same SS benefits as Tom Gates, a $40,000 a year factory worker?

I have not heard a thing about either of these simple, efficient fixes from our Democratic leaders. Which means, either they are saying it so softly it is not getting national attention, or they are failing to make the case.

Meanwhile, Bush has a megaphone to try to convince folks that REMOVING MONEY from the SS system is the way to "save" it.

Let's step up to the plate, Democrats!

[cthrumatrix]

1. worse yet..bush lied

[Just Me]

15. Bush, the neoCONs & Republicans apparently HATE AMERICANS.

All these people do is conspire to funnel public wealth into the hands of the filty rich. They've screwed our elderly, our children and 95% of our people.

These greedy bastards spend our loyalty, our trust, our blood and our treasure. They should all be imprisoned for the scam against American!!!!

:mad:

[CWebster]

2. Because they are more inclined to bolster Wall Street over

Main Street?

[dweller]

3. it's supposed to 'fix' itself in 2018

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

"...the real meaning of the trust fund: It's an implicit promise that high earners will keep their part of the bargain and begin paying their share of Social Security's costs when the baby boomers retire."


there's the 'crisis' no one wants to talk about.
dp

[CWebster]

5. BINGO!!!!

No one talks about this.

It is ALL for his base of "have-mores".

[jswordy]

9. Interesting peice by Kevin Drum...

Unfortunately, Congress did not enact legislation at the time to codify the intent for income taxes to rise. So, it could be construed that the bargain allegedly struck between rich and poor was nothing more than a shell game or smoke and mirrors to provide political cover for the fix. Minus an income tax rise (which is exactly what Bush seeks to preveent by making his cuts permanent), we will still be in a SS financial bind around 2042-2052.

But that financial bind does not mean SS will go broke. It means benefits will be reduced. This is what the so-called "crisis" is all about, reducing benefits to 75 percent from 100 percent.

However, the actuarial tables used to determine when SS will be forced to reduce coverage from 100 percent are extremely conservative, and the date at which that event would happen has been consistently pushed into the future as actual economic figures continually supplant conservative projections.

Bush proposes to "fix" this shortfall by taking more out of the SS system for use in private accounts. That does not make any sense. By removing two-thirds of a payee's funds from the system for private accounts, Bush instantly cuts 66 percent of SS funding.

If Democrats want to fix SS, it is as easy as raising the payment ceiling to people making $1 million or less. Yet our leaders are silent, fearing (I would suppose) that their large donors would frown on such a move.

[dweller]

14. then what is in the law signed by Reagan?

So this was the implicit bargain in the reforms recommended by Greenspan and signed into law by Reagan: From 1983 to 2018, low- and
middle-income earners would pay excess payroll taxes. This allowed income taxes to be kept low, and primarily benefited high earners.

Then, beginning in 2018, instead of raising payroll taxes to pay for baby-boomer retirement benefits, Social Security would begin selling its
bonds back to the government.

To pay for those bonds, income taxes would be raised - high earners would begin paying higher income taxes.

dp

[jswordy]

16. Here ya go:

The 1983 law's points in brief...

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html

1983 law's points in detail...

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend2.html

Full text of current Social Security law...

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/comp-ssa.htm

Enjoy! Let me know if you find anyplace there beyond the mandated increases where it says the rich later must pay more taxes to replenish the system. I haven't found it.

[CWebster]

18. THIS CAN NOT BE KICKED ENOUGH TIMES! nt

[CWebster]

4. Boxer is on C-span2 now

fighting the good fight.

[snippy]

6. A form of means testing was introduced when Reagan started including

50% of benefits in taxable income for higher income retirees. Clinton increased that to 85%. Rather than including some portion of benefits in taxable income, it might be better to give a tax deduction to anyone who returned or declined to accept their benefit. A lot of people have strong objections to means testing so I don't know whether ordinary means testing could be passed by Congress.

[jswordy]

7. I actually favor raising the ceiling to...

...$1 million, rather than doing a means test.

By raising the ceiling to $1 million, you will have 90+ percent of Americans making contributions.

[snippy]

10. I agree that the ceiling should be raised or eliminated entirely.

A common objection to this is that the high income person would not see an increase in benefits which corresponded to the increased FICA payments. But that person has benefited greatly from the spending of the Social Security surpluses on other government programs over the years, so I don't consider that objection to have much merit.

[jswordy]

12. That objection is fallacious because...

...Bill Gates gets a Social Security payment now, the same as some $30,000 a year janitor. Difrference is, Gates doesn't have to pay for his above $87,500.

It's RICH FOLKS WELFARE, is what it is.

What it all comes down to is, the rich have to start paying their way.

I haven't heard a peep from Democratic leaders on this. Not one.

[w4rma]

20. You weren't listening during the Presidential campaign, then

Sen. Kerry ran on raising/eliminating the cap.

[jswordy]

21. Yeah, I know Kerry had that in his platform...that was then...and...

...oh yeah, he was so GOOD at getting his overall message across, he lost! Ahem. "I'm not Bush" apparently didn't work out too well for us.

Where's Kerry now, as far as standing up for his buried campaign platform plank? He's still a senator.

Haven't heard a peep.

WE HAVE A NEED TO LEAD!

The party needs to get its collective head out of its ass and start generating some talking points to its pols across the board, and raise this into the national consciousness.

When we do lead again, we will win again.

[DrGonzoLives]

8. Uh

Reid has already pretty much said no Senate Democrat will be voting for it. Snowe won't either, possibly Chafee, there's 47 votes right there.

Sheesh, what a let down. :eyes:

[jswordy]

11. No Democrat voting for Bush's proposal sounds...

...really proactive, huh? Shit!

I am talking about proposing a Democratic fix that would actually work, not just being the anti-Bush. You know, actually DOING SOMETHING. I guess that is too much to ask from the knee-jerkers.

Yes, what a let down is right! :mad:

[Pepperbelly]

13. fix what exactly?

The shortfall in the long run (i.e. 75 years) amounts to only a third of the cost of Bush's tax cuts. The 24 trillion number these lying bastards cite are a useless extrpolation that violates every tenent of accounting ... ie shortfall through infinity. Yep, that is where they get the number.

So the "fix" is not that big a deal. The more important battle is to not let these crooks crook the fucking system in a massive, panic-induced smash-and-grab robbery for Wall Street.

[jswordy]

17. I agree that the fix is not that big a deal, but - and this is important..

...there does need to be a fix to ensure that 100 percent of benefits continue to be paid to future generations. Otherwise, even by the most optimistic current projections, cuts in benefit levels will occur in 2052. Raising the contribution ceiling to $1 million of earned income would easily fix the problem by adding in payments from folks who most can afford to make additional contributions.

Now, quite aside from that, my anger and disappointment is that rather than lead and offer this alternative, which is reasonable and preserves the system for our kids, cowed Democrats are simply being "not Bush."

We tried that in November, remember?

Our party needs to be a LEADER when it comes to offering a populist alternative view of America if it ever expects to get back on its feet politically.

Simply saying, "It's Bush's plan so it won't work" ain't gonna cut it in 2006 midterms.

WE have a NEED to LEAD!

[McCamy Taylor]

19. Letting us down? They are doing a great job! This one is a cake walk.

:toast:

[LittleClarkie]

23. I concur -- this is their line in the sand

Much as we wanted them to make it Gonzalez, and even there they are getting up and giving some fine speeches, I do believe that Social Security is their line in the sand. The president WILL not be touching Social Security, thank you very much. When have you ever heard a president being booed at his own SOTU speech. I loved it. We became the House of Commons for a minute there.

Even so, we can't let up the fight. Not until it is certain that the President will not be allowed to muck up SS.

But the Dems are not letting us down on this issue. We just have to see if it holds, is all. If they all vote no, can it be overridden?

[Malva Zebrina]

22. Because it is the younger people who have been sold a lie

Once more the efficient propanda lying machine has convinced persons that a lie is truth. Young people believe that SS will be bankrupt by the time they retire and that they will not get any benefits. Underlying that anxiety is another not said--that they are "paying" for old persons to have medical care--why should an eighty year old man have heart surgery on their money?

The Democrats have no such propaganda machine and had little response to the lie. They let it go on, and now their constituents, the young people, want them to "reform" SS and protect their retirement.

It is no accident that Laura Bush, who got in a plug for her keeper's social security "REFORM" while she was addressing an audience on heart health. It is no accident that her next great project, as the nation's comforter, will be to go to the streets to "help" the poor young people who live there, and it is no accident that she mentioned in another speech that she wants to help "boys" become strong men or some such blather, while mentioning girls in a relatively lesser role.

We will hear the lie repeated over and over and over as Bush travels around the country being a snakeoil salesman

[Spacejet]

24. Could it be strategy?

3. Necessary evil


Unfortunately bush killing social security may be one of the ONLY things that will wake us the masses.

[Liberty Belle]

25. Better yet...

Repeal the elimination of the inheritance tax, capital gains tax cuts, and income tax cuts for the rich. Don't squeeze gramps and granny, or the kids. Instead:

Reframe the debate "NO MORE WELFARE FOR THE WEALTHY!"

[jswordy]

26. I agree. See my post #12! And I must say here that...

...there is a difference between simply being against something and proposing a plan of our own. One more time - sigh - if we are to be a winning party, we must not only oppose items like SS "reform," we must come up with an alternate vison of our own.

[Liberty Belle]

27. Rob from the rich and give to the poor would be a nice start.

Reinstate the estate tax for billionaires and multi-millionaires.
Roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%.

Use the money to strengthen Social Security and REDUCE the retirement age, not raise it. That should be a popular platform.

Also to fund healthcare for all of us.

Make corporate predators more responsible, not less. Create a "tax" on corporations that lose consumer protection lawsuits. If a company's products kill or maim someone, the government gets a 1% cut, added on TOP of the court settlement given to victims.

So corporations want more tax breaks? Give a tax write-off to companies with superior records for product safety and worker safety.