Why are Democrats in Congress even considering any changes to SS?

[quaoar]

I just heard Nancy Pelosi on ABC discussing the Social Security Destruction Act of 2005. She was analyzing the various aspects of it and said they'd be willing to have some things on the table, etc., blah, blah, blah.

Why don't Democrats just stand up and say, "No. Hell, no" to the rape of Social Security?

How is this for a Democratic position on SS -- "Over our dead bodies."

If we can't stop this, we should just bend over and take it. Just trade in the New Deal for the Raw Deal.

[FloridaPat]

1. Bush speaks and it's mtruth. No one is asking if there is a problem.

They have a small problem. It was suppose to be taken care of with the big tax increases in SS the last 10 years. There is a lot of money in SS now. There is no problem, but the media has taken off and says there is and that seems to be the end of that discussion.

Another thing is, everyone is expecting the baby boomers to live forever and be a very big drain. People die. They actually said that originally the average retiree lived only 18 months. You pay into something for a life time and then get 18 months of benefits? Bull! So much crap from these people.

Did you see McCain? He's for it! Did he have a brain operation recently?

[BillZBubb]

2. Exactly correct! Dems should draw a line in the sand on this.

But they won't. I find it amazing how many people here on DU, who are much more informed than the average Joe, buy into the Repug line that SS needs "reforming".

The Dems need to do to this exactly what the Pugs did to Clinton's health care proposal. They killed something good and got rewarded for it by taking over the government.

Dems need to kill this evil trojan horse. No support, no compromise, and dispute the dishonest claim that the system is even in any real trouble.

This should be a clarion call for all true progressives: No give on Social Security. No compromise with evil.

[quaoar]

3. Amen to that

If we express a willingness to consider any change to the system, it is a tacit admission that the system needs reforming. And that opens the floodgates.

[Just Me]

37. Perhaps, they should point out the reckless profitteering by the neoCONs!!

Perhaps, they should reveal how the neoCONspirators are funnelling public wealth into the military-corporate machine that they SOLELY represent at the sacrifice and on the backs of the American people.

Perhaps, they should do that.

Perhaps.

[CindyDale]

4. Yeah, they should change it

Raise the benefits. They are way too low.

Raise the maximum salary taxed to infinity.

[kentuck]

5. And what about the 5 or 6 Democrats that join Bush and the Repubs...

....to walk over our dead bodies. Doing nothing will leave us holding the bag.

[Kimber Scott]

6. Holding what bag? We're in the bag. Waiting to be buried. I'd like

to try to fight our way out of it.

[quaoar]

7. And why not use this argument

The same people who brought you Abu Ghraib and endless war in Iraq now want to "fix" Social Security.

The same people who promised millions of new jobs if we cut taxes on the rich now want to "fix" Social Security.

The same people who gave us record deficits and made outsourcing a household word now want to "fix" Social Security.

[marcologico]

8. Oh please Mr. President, don't call us obstructionists, we'd just die!

We're trying real hard to do the homework you gave, so please don't give us detention!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. I was in Springfield MO yesterday

and visited the library. Springfield is not a bastion of liberalism, but the local papers were saying that even the Republicans were backing off from backing Bush's SS proposals. The AR Dem/Gazette, the right wing rag from my state, was trying to slant things in favor of Bush, but a sarcastic LTTE quoted their own articles to show how bogus Bush's plan is.

Dems only need to propose shoring up SS by raising the cap on salaries that pay FICA.

[CindyDale]

10. Eliminate the caps

You always ask for more than you need. Then you negotiate: cap at $10M is what you want, for example.

[IrwinDC]

11. The SS System for My Generation

This may not be popular on here, but the reality is that for my generation (I’m in my late 20’s), the SS system simply cannot continue at the status quo. I think the Democrats would be wise to admit this and propose some fixes to the system.

I know that fewer workers are going to be supporting more retirees. In a “pay as you go” system, this is simply not sustainable. Something has to give and my generation is either going to have to pay more taxes/retire later or expect lower disbursements in the future. Either way, we are going to get a lower “return” (of course SS is not an investment program but it can still be thought of in terms of return based on what one pays in over a lifetime and what one receives at retirement).

I actually agree that people should have the ability to set aside some portion of one’s SS payments into some type of fund, probably set at a DOW index. This would compensate my generation for the fact that the current SS system is going to provide a lower return to us. Clinton also agreed with this policy to some extent. The problem with the President’s current proposal is that he is not willing to accept the fact that taxes are going to have to go up or some other type of funding increase/disbursement decrease will have to occur. In the end, the solution is probably somewhere in the middle. The problem is, will either party meet in the middle. Don’t hold your breath!

[cry baby]

14. None of that doom and gloom will happen if there is some tweeking

or going with what Clinton proposed when he was prez. Stop buying into the hype. And if you want to, put a little $$ into the market if you are so inclined. It doesn't have to be a part of what you pay into the system. If you stop paying into the system, I won't have SS when I am old. If my generation stops paying into the system, my mom and dad won't get their due.

[IrwinDC]

16. First, no one is saying ...

...that we should not continue to pay into the system. I’m certainly not saying that. But, the future problems are not “hype” and the return for people in my generation will be terrible. The “tweaking” you are talking about is in effect making my generation pay more, either through higher taxes or less disbursements in the future. All I am asking for is some type of compensation for the extra burden my generation is going to take on. Give me the ability to get at least the return my parents will be getting as I am supporting them.

[quaoar]

21. Too damn bad

Social Security is a social contract from one generation to the next. You pay to take care of your grandparents and then your parents. When you retire, your children and grandchildren pay to take care of you.

So you want some compensation by setting aside a portion of the money you pay into SS for your own account? Without raising taxes or cutting benefits, that requires borrowing money to make up for the money you will be taking out of the system for your own use.

So what you want is for the government borrow money to compensate you and pass the cost of that borrowing on to future generations.

Sorry, but you don't deserve any compensation.

[IrwinDC]

22. Did you even read what I said?

I said that I AGREE to pay more into the system. It has to happen.

But, for that trade off, I think people in my generation should be given an ability to earn as high a return as those our parents and grandparents earned. Letting people set aside a portion of the increased money they are going to be paying into SS into some type of individual/personal account would be one way to get that. It’s called compromise, ever heard of it?

If the Democrats answer to this genuine concern is “Too bad!” then they have lost the debate already. Rather childish if you ask me.

[quaoar]

23. You don't make any sense

You say you will have to pay more so you want compensation. How are you going to do that without taking money out of the system?

You want as high a return as your parents and grandparents? What the hell are you talking about? Your parents and grandparents didn't earn any money on what they paid into the system. The system earned the money on interest from treasury bonds and other secure instruments.

[IrwinDC]

25. I'll keep it simple...

Let me attempt to spell it out for you. I’ll use small numbers to keep it simple for you.

Say I pay $8 now with the current system. I keep the system afloat with the baby boom generation I would have to pay $10. I agree to pay $12 and invest a portion of the additional money into a private account that I could invest in something like a DOW fund. This would force people to invest in the market and provide a higher return for my generation, thus compensating us for having to pay more in taxes.

And when I say return, I simply mean the amount one gets paid in disbursements upon retirement in relation to the amount paid in over a working life. I attempted to make this distinction previously. Maybe you should read it again.

My grandparents got an excellent return, taxes were low back when they were working and they are getting high benefits now (even taking into account inflation). My parents are going to get a pretty good return as well, yet not quite as good as their parents. Unfortunately, as the current system is a pay as you go, at it’s current situation, I will get a terrible return.

[quaoar]

26. LOL

I thought that's what you were attempting to say, but I didn't want to ask because it's so unrealistic.

You want to pay more to support the boomers and then pay even more for a personal account. Why in God's name would you want to do that? Have you ever heard of a 401K or an IRA?

Raising Social Security payroll taxes is not on the table in this discussion. Bush has flatly said no. The money he would allow to go into private accounts would come from taxes currently being paid. Private accounts means money coming out of the system which means borrowing trillions to make up the difference. That's the reality on Planet Bush.

As far as the benefits you will get relative to your parents and grandparents, benefits are indexed to the inflation rate. What is the source of your assertion that they paid lower taxes and got hgiher benefits than you will get?

Try to keep it simple so a poor ole Alabama boy like me can understand.

[IrwinDC]

63. Uhh....

Look, the example was simply a SIMPLE example illustrating the point. I’m not saying that my generation would absorb all of the “cost” of the change in a tax raise. You could also raise the retirement age for my generation (something that makes sense considering people live longer anyway) or perhaps alter the index used to increase disbursements (something already mentioned). In the end, with a higher return from private accounts put in a simple index fund, I would be better off. Additionally, then I could then focus on investing in “riskier” investments that have an ability to beat the market (positive alphas).

The point is that there are plenty of ways to alter the system and pay for any changes. I used a simple and unrealistic example because you seemed to be unable to even grasp the concept of return.

And my parents and grandparents paid lower tax rates for decades. The payroll tax rate was raised in the 1960’s and again in the 1980’s (look it up). My grandparents were almost retired by that point. My parents are almost retired now. Their weighted average tax rate will be much lower than mine will be. Simple demographics will tell you that.

[quaoar]

69. Simply amazing

Payroll taxes have gone up but overall tax rates have fallen, especially in higher tax brackets. So your parents and grandparents most likely paid a higher percentage of income in taxes than you will, depending on your income level of course.

I used a simple and unrealistic example because you seemed to be unable to even grasp the concept of return.

Good thing I have a sharp Washington fellow like you to educate a poor ignorant redneck like me. I'll mention that "return" thing at the next Mensa meeting. Maybe someone else has heard of it.

[papau]

77. No you do not get a terrible return - but is much less than the first

generation simply because they had not paid in all their lives - and until a full generation was retired, the tax rate was artificially low.

I think you are advocating add-on voluntary accounts - which has been the Dem position since Monyihan and Clinton proposed them in the 90's.

As to your actual "return" Cato and other RW liars will be glad to give you a fake number that excludes the value if the insurance, disability, survivor benefits.

There are also some heavy lifting econ texts that show that when everything is considered, you get about the return that is available to all in the private markets - and you get it with very little expense.

But because of the slight shift caused by the boomers, that retire from 2010 to 2030, planned taxes will cause a slightly less than average return for those years.

After 2030 the retiree population stabilizes again - and all is well - or at least fair - from then on.

[papau]

66. Nonsense - why do you believe such false ideas about Social Security?

What you know "I know that fewer workers are going to be supporting more retirees. In a “pay as you go” system, this is simply not sustainable. Something has to give and my generation is either going to have to pay more taxes/retire later or expect lower disbursements in the future. Either way, we are going to get a lower “return” (of course SS is not an investment program but it can still be thought of in terms of return based on what one pays in over a lifetime and what one receives at retirement)." is not what the Social Security Actuaries and Trustees say is true.

Sounds like GOP lies said as a statement of GOP faith.

[cyclezealot]

12. Think it was under Clinton, the Social Security governors advocated

a .5% tax increase on employees/employers and raise the upper income cap to $100.000....the fund would be fluid until 2100..This is my fix on Social Security...Cheap insurance to insure all of us an income base in our old age.

[IrwinDC]

13. Cheap?

12% of your annual salary is not cheap.

I agree that there must be some tax increase (either through raising the rate or cap or both), yet my generation is getting screwed simply because of demographics. To compensate us for this larger burden we will be taking on we must get a better return. At least the same return our parents and grandparents have gotten.

[cyclezealot]

65. 12% .?

Is not the 12% split between employer and employee...More like 7%. On something that will maybe support you for 15 years..More reliable than the stock market.

[Al-CIAda]

15. They've STOLEN the money from SS and now don't want to pay it back

That should be the response.

The borrow and spend republicans have maxed out our credit cards to make the rich richer, while trying to stick ordinary Americans with the bill.

New Deal to Raw Deal indeed.


If the Dems fail to stop this and whimp out again, its pretty much over.
We have false opposition. There is nothing to stop the total descention into fascism.

[kentuck]

17. That appears to be the case...

They are looking down the road. They know they are not going to grow out of this mess with the huge spending , taxcuts during a war, and monstrous deficits as far as the eye can see. They want to write it off, I am convinced.

[gulfcoastliberal]

67. Exactly right! What about the "lockbox"?

SS had a SURPLUS when Chimpco took over and before the first 4 years ended they broke their promise and looted the SS money.

Now there is nothing in SS but red ink. They robbed it and gave the $$ to the rich through the "tax cuts". Why is Reid and company not screaming this from the rooftops? Oh, I guess that isn't polite inside the beltway. What a pathetic bunch of Miss Nancys.

[cestpaspossible]

18. What specifically did Pelosi say that you disagree with?

Without putting words in her mouth, by using only what she actually said, what do you disagree with? Just wondering.

[webjamn]

19. She didn't offer any alternatives

When she was asked what the Democrats would do if not private accounts she just said they would have to examine all the options. Can you honestly tell me they haven't thought about alternatives to privatization? And if they have, what are they? I want to hear them now.

[cestpaspossible]

20. lol

The alternative to privatizing Social Security is not privatizing Social Security.

Social Security is probably the most popular and successful government program ever. All I can say is, thank you, George Bush, for the gift of this issue, hopefully we can tie it to every Republican up in 2006.

[googly]

28. If SS is so great as is, why is'nt Nancy Pelosi in it?

Why is she in a system which allows stock market investments
instead? That is the height of hypocracy to design a better
system for their own retirement, but we the people, have to
be forced into a system that not a single one of the senators
or the house representatives want for themselves? Does that
ring a bell in someone's head? Anyone??

[cestpaspossible]

29. Your comment is totally divorced from reality.

I don't see any points of commonality between your comment, and the actual world we live in.

[googly]

31. Am I lying when I say Nancy Pelosi is NOT in our Social Security system?

[cestpaspossible]

33. Are congressional salaries exempt from payroll taxes?

Has Nancy Pelosi's Social Security card been revoked? Are former members of Congress not eligible to receive Social Security benefits?

[googly]

35. You are deflecting the issue...why do our elected senators and

house of representatives get the benefit of having
private investment accounts while they are in office,
but we can't? None of them contribute to social security
while in office! Why is that?

Obviously if they have worked before outside of elected
office or a federal job, they were forced to contribute
into social security and thus they will have a social security
card.

But here is the important question. WHY DO THEY DESIGN A SYSTEM
FOR THEMSELVES which allows personal investment accounts, and
why do they not have to contribute to social security like the
rest of us? It is obvious to me, their retirement system is
superior to ours. No wonder they won't join ours.

[cestpaspossible]

39. No, I'm calling you on your bullshit.

Yes, Pelosi is a participant in the Social Security system, even though like millions of other Americans she also has another retirement plan.

[googly]

46. Check yourself....House representatives do NOT pay payroll tax

while in office. If she is in the social security system
that must be from her work BEFORE getting elected.

But again, my whole point is if she has the option of
NOT paying payroll tax and instead contribute to a private
investment account, why not peons like me have the same option?

All I want is an OPTION just like she has. She makes the laws,
I don't. Yet she elects to be in a system different than mine
which was created by her colleagues.

[marcologico]

48. Fine, but that kind of investment option is a separate issue from SS

which is an insurance program. Anyway nobody's heard the specifics so we don't know if that's one of them.

[cestpaspossible]

51. I'll let you answer your own question.

If she is in the social security system
that must be from her work BEFORE getting elected.

Well, she wasn't born into Congress, she did have jobs before she was elected to Congress.

Which makes the answer to this question obvious:

Am I lying when I say Nancy Pelosi is NOT in our Social Security system?

[DistantWind88]

68. You are 100% wrong

Members of Congress DO pay FICA. You might want to do some research.

[googly]

72. Exactly....but the money does NOT go into my social security

and that is my whole point here. Our elected politicians have
set up a mucho grande option for themselves, but small fryes
like myself are locked into the social security system with
no options whatsoever.

[DistantWind88]

74. What is your point?

They are locked into SS too. They pay SS and they receive SS. They do have another pension plan as well, like millions of other Americans, but they pay SS just like you do.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[cestpaspossible]

54. nt

[googly]

73. You must be missing my main point -> N Pelosi does NOT contribute

to MY social security system while she is in congress.
I like her plan better, and I want it. What is so
wrong with that?

[DistantWind88]

76. Sure she does

She "contributes" to the exact same social security program as you do. You want her pension plan as well? Run for and get elected to Congress. Problem solved.

[Just Me]

24. 'CAUSE BUSH & THE NEOCONS FUCKED IT UP, "ROYALLY"!!!!

If you fail to comprehend HOW,...I can only suggest you engage in some self-initiative to find out for yourself.

RAPE,...is a very good word.

RAPE ALL PUBLIC WEALTH TO ENRICH THE CORPORATISTS!!!

RAPE AMERICAN BLOOD, LIFE, TREASURE AND FREEDOM TO ADVANCE THE ELITE!

[googly]

30. So you are saying that every senator, every house rep,

is a rapist because NONE of them are in OUR social security
system. They have designed a separate system for themselves,
which allows stock investments. Go figure.

[Just Me]

34. Are you putting words in my mouth? PUKE!!!! eom

[googly]

27. May be because NOT A SINGLE one of them is in social security?

They have their own retirement system where they can
invest in stocks. If social security was a better system,
you would think they would want it, don't you?

Why can't we the people, have the same system as the people
who make our laws?

[Just Me]

36. May BE CAUSE the neoCONspirators have SPENT our nation to death!!!

Hell, one of those neoCONspirators, Rummy REDRUM, CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR 2.3 BILLION DOLLARS, TAXPAYER DOLLARS, APPROPRIATED TO THE DOD!!!

Amazing. Stupifying. What SKILL it must take to lose track of so much money!!!!

[googly]

75. Agreed....fire the SOB's who are stealing our money.

[TheWebHead]

32. There are some factors that favor change

While I don't trust republicans to tweak the system because I suspect their ultimate intention is to destroy it, you have to recognize that when they talk about investing in the stock market and letting people take control of where this money they pay in gets invested, it appeals to a large section of the country that already invests and to anyone who wants choice in general. That being said, the private accounts aspect is the nicely packaged smokescreen to the cut in benefits, which is obviously much less popular.

Personally, I don't mind the idea of allowing a percentage of SS to be invested in index funds (since I hate the idea of money managers being involved when there are only going to be a few investment choices - it invites corruption). I'd also like to see the payroll tax cap to not be lifted, but to go to $90K as it does now and start again once someone reaches over $300k/yr. This would eliminate the argument that a man with a family of 4 who makes $120k would get a tax hike. Someone making over $300k/yr doesn't have much of a hardship argument.

[Robbien]

38. Until all talk about privatization is off the table, SS should stand as is

The minute the Dems give on any SS issue, the RNC will jump all over the issue and use it as proof the SS is in CRISIS.

The stance should be Social Security is fine. No changes are required.

[TheOriginalAmerican]

40. This is just my opinion.

I don't really think that privatizing SS is destroying it. It might make SS less secure than it is now, but it might also enable some to accumulate more money over the years.

Basically, the way it works is that they would still take some out of your check for SS. It's just that you would be allowed to invest some of it in stocks.

My main problem with SS reform is that we would have to borrow more money from other countries (many of which hate us) to be able to keep giving regular SS checks to the current elderly. I don't want to count on loans, and I especially don't want to make our deficit larger.

The elderly are often in a position where they can't work and where they can't get enough from their SS checks at the same time.

SS does need reform, and it needs it badly. It will still be there for years to come if this SS bill doesn't pass, but will there be enough in each check? It doesn't appear to be enough for some of the elders that I know right now. I've heard of elders that have to eat cat food because they don't have enough money. Something has to be done. I just don't know if Bush's idea is a good one. I know it's not good to try it with this deficit and so many countries hating us (to ask for loans from).

As for why Democrats would go along with it, we need our people to come in and help the Republicans make it up. When we were drawing up the constitution, anti-federalists helped federalists make it up because they wanted to make sure that their values got put into the constitution. Because of them, we have a Bill of Rights. Democrats can help soften the blow of whatever bad parts might be in SS reform.

[quaoar]

41. How do you figure

that Social Security needs reform and needs it badly? Where do you get that from?

[TheOriginalAmerican]

50. SS was never meant to be a retirement package.

That's why people have often worked at a place their whole life to benefit from a retirement package.

I'd like for Social Security to be something that a person can truly retire on.

I've been hearing my whole life how SS isn't enough. Now that the biggest asshole in history claims he wants to reform it, SS is supposedly fine and dandy.

[Sterling]

78. It is not enough. making it less is retarded.

Only a naive moron would think Bushes pump and dump scam is a good idea. Yes SS is meant as a retirement plan. For those not fortunate enough to have corporate jobs with 402ks it IS the retirement plan.

[borg5575]

42. Nothing ever stays the same

I oppose Bush's proposals for Social Security because his real agenda is to destroy it. We all know that.

However, any government program over time may need to be tweaked to reflect changing realities such as the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers. I don't see anything wrong with considering some reasonable changes that will really strengthen Social Security, not destroy it. I think that's all that Nancy is saying and I agree with her.

Foe instance, we may want to consider raising the Social Security wage base for FICA payroll deductions so that more affluent people can pay their fair share. We might also consider a means test whereby millionaires don't receive full benefits. This would in turn allow us to raise benefits for poorer recipients.

[quaoar]

43. Name one thing

that Democrats can gain -- in the real world of politics -- by expressing a willingness to consider changes to the system.

[borg5575]

45. They will show that they have a positive alternative to offer

If they can propose something that will truly strengthen Social Security, then why not?

After all, Social Security has been changed several times in the past with the support of Democrats. But those changes were positive changes. Of course we don't want a smoke screen for destroying it, but that doesn't mean that there might actually be some positive changes that can be made.

[quaoar]

52. Oh good grief

This is politics.

Perception is reality -- not reasonable policy alternatives. It doesn't matter what idea Democrats come up with. It will be lost in the fog and the only thing anyone will remember will be that Democrats went along with the idea that the system should be changed.

While the system might benefit from some tweaking, it cannot be done in the current atmosphere. Save it for when Democrats regain the White House. Any willingness to compromise on anything today will be perceived as weakness and we'll get rolled.

[borg5575]

58. And when might that be?

Save it for when Democrats regain the White House.

If we don't show that we have some ideas ourselves then it might be a long time before we ever get back in power.

I don't want my party to be the party of just saying "no." I want my party to be the party of positive ideas for the future.

[cry baby]

59. There are plenty of alternative ideas, the dems just haven't agreed

on one. And please don't use the repub talking points with us. No offense, but framing is everything.

[borg5575]

61. I am using no one's talking points

I am stating my own opinion and mine alone.

[cry baby]

62. I've heard "the party of saying no" many times in the past 2 weeks

from repubs on the talk shows. You may have picked it up and not even noticed.

And if you listen and read carefully, there are a lot of ideas floating around the dem party. And by the way, the 2042 projections of "bancruptcy" are drawn on the "worst possible scenerio" numbers on the economic growth in the coming years. Read some of the Washington Post's articles on this written by the financial journalist.

[borg5575]

71. I think you are rather condescending...

to suggest that the only way I could have come up with that idea is to hear it from a Republican talking head. I don't think that you intended it that way but that's what it seemed to me on the surface.

[marcologico]

44. Fortunately, some aren't:

KERRY on MTP (Jan. 30): "President Bush is hyping a phony crisis. The crisis in America today is 45 million Americans who don't have 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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50306-2005Jan31_5.html

And Kennedy said the same thing today.

[Ravy]

49. I believe Democrats *SHOULD* discuss Social Security....

It can be improved. Lockbox, raising the contribution cap. They should not budge an inch towards privatization, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't offer suggestions to make it better.

The President and thugs are on record saying something MUST BE DONE to save it, but are getting pounded on THEIR plan to save it. Let the Democrats put forward their plans.

[marcologico]

53. Oh, they're discussing it...

The Kennedy/Kerry plan is basically to use uppper-bracket income tax to fix the projected SS funding shortfall, which is actually pretty radical.

They also both have health plans to cover the health insurance gap (Kennedy calls his Medicare Plus I think, Kerry calls his Kids First).

[quaoar]

56. Do you seriously think

that any Democratic plan stands any chance of being passed?

When the Republicans demonized the Clinton health-care plan did they fret because they weren't offering their own alternative? Hell no. And why would they? It would have been DOA in the Democratic Congress.

[marcologico]

57. Depends on what you mean by plan, but yes, in this case.

They don't call SS the "third rail" for nothing. Chimpster isn't facing any more elections but most Senators and Reps are.

[TheOriginalAmerican]

70. Yes, I think a Dem's plan might get passed.

Remember when the majority of Congress (mostly Republican) voted not to get rid of Clinton years ago when he was in all that trouble? They did that because they knew the American outcry would be enormous if they didn't.

If we can get a growing number of Americans to value the Democrat's plans for health care (especially healthcare for kids and the elderly), then we can get those pesky Republicans to pass it.

[hedda_foil]

55. Sit Nancy down and talk turkey with her, Howard!

Damn it! Dean damn well better set policy and enforce it if we're going to get anywhere with these political imbeciles. Pelosi was liberal as all get out until she became minority leader. Now she's listening to the ass-clown DLC strategerists. Like the Dems in the House can do a damn thing to influence the Repubs. How bout getting enough pukes over to your side, Nancy? They have an election to win in '06 too, don't they?

[dolstein]

60. Any honest Democrat would admit that eventually changes will be needed

You can argue about whether it makes sense to tackle this problem now when Medicare is in far worse shape, but do deny that any changes will be needed simply defies reality. If demographic and economic trends continue, some tinkering will be needed. We've done it before. No big deal. Unfortunately, you have braindead politicians like Kerry completely ruling out ANY changes to benefits or the retirement age, which leaves yet another payroll tax hike as the only option.

[BlueInRed]

64. Here's a good article on the whole surplus thing

It gives a lot of history and shoots down the nonsense.
http://www.tnr.com/091701/chait091701.html