What if the Dems went along with SS private accts IF...

[slor]

the money would ONLY be invested in renewable energy solutions? What if they designed a plan that would compromise with the rethugs, but would jump start a huge influx of money now, before we really get hurt by the coming energy crunch. It could be sold as what it is, our national security interests, and we all get to own a part of it, as we should anyway, not to mention the environmental concerns, which is my own primary goal. Two issues snatched from the rethugs and a slam dunk for our future. What do you think folks? And no, I do not support the rethugs on any issue ever, but we have so many dems that do, I think they (rethugs) will get this, so we could upstage them for the good of us all!

[spooked911]

1. I'm not sure I understand your plan, but I am all for investing

in alternative energy. I think the Dems HAVE to take this issue for themselves and make it a top priority.

I don't think giving into SS privatiziation is such a good idea.

[slor]

4. Well the rethugs want it to go into wall st.

but I am saying, divert all of it towards renewable energy and the manufacture of it. We pay today, for the energy sources of later today (considering peak oil). I do not claim to have any concrete plans, and they will need to be worked out, but screw giving the money to wall st, without really planning for the bigger issues facing us, and that is not the trumped up SS crises.

[Career Prole]

2. I admire your choice of investments

but not the means of acquiring the funds.

http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm

[kentuck]

3. So, do we take the $ 21 billion back that we just gave the big oil ...?

companies? I'm not sure this would be a good idea. It assumes there would be a solution after giving away part of your retirement. That's quite a gamble.

[slor]

5. They should have never got that...

and it should be going to what I am talking about. But I ask myself, would I forgo some of my own future benefits, for cleaner, cheaper, renewable energy down the road, I would say yes. We could also become the leader in renewables, and that would create jobs, so it may very well secure SS anyway. We could also use money to rescue and improve the public transportation system. The more I think about it, the more I like it, and the fact is, we are going to have to do it anyway Think of it as the Manhatten Project for energy.

[slor]

6. I am self-kicking this...

because I want more input. I do not want those bastards to destroy SS, but the fact is, none of us may be around to get it anyway, with the chimp and his policies that completely disregard the environment! So what the hell are we fighting for? We can force money into renewables with this plan, and we may usher in a period of the human condition that we no longer even worry about SS. Clean air, clean water, more TREES, fewer cars! Think about it.

[Hand]

7. Hmm... wouldn't trust it to happen.

First thing you'd see would be a massive redefinition of "renewable energy solutions" that would basically amount to handing the money over to big oil in one way or another. I mean, hell, crude oil's a renewable resource--it just takes a few million years to renew. Voila!

[slor]

9. Ok, so it will have to be regulated closely...

but dammit, we need to do something soon, and the oil thugs do not appear to give a shit. In one felled swoop we could destroy the claims of "obstruction" and "lack of own plan", and get the country on the right track. It could ultimately save money in so many ways, and create jobs and smart investments! I think the public will jump at a plan like this.

[Blue Belle]

16. See... you just said "regulated"...

thats the rub right there for the GOP. They don't want to have any oversight or regulations when it come to money or big business. I'm with you, I think we should be looking into alternative energy and it should have been done yesterday and I wouldn't be bitching if a percentage of my SS went to it, but we're talking about a majority party who sneaks the funds for paying for a baseball stadium into the terrorism budget... They cover what's of interest to the GOP BEFORE they cover the interest in anyone or anything else - and they don't care that they're screwing their grandchildren out of fresh air to do it.

[Inland]

8. So I get to invest it any way I want, as long as it's some energy thing?

Well, it's a) either a crap investment for me, in which case I get to live in poverty or b) it's a good investment, in which case somebody is already making it or c) it's a crap, risky investment that would be good for the country anyway, in which case the government should be making it directly instead of putting both the problem and the risk on ME.

So rube goldberg appeal aside, that's a no go.

[slor]

10. You do not really get to invest as you want...

think of it more as an investment in rebuilding the country and infrastructure, in a greener and more fuel efficient manner. Think of it as a forced national funding of the Apollo Project.

[Inland]

12. Except it isn't nationally funding anything.

If that were the case, then the government would be doing it.

Its taking my taxes from its purpose funding my retirement, taking it out of the system so that it goes broke sooner, and putting all the risk of the failure of the energy industry on me, personally.

If it's so important, why have the funding come from retirees and wage earners ONLY? Why make them bear all the burden and all the risk?

[slor]

15. It can be done in such a way...

that is completely transparent to the public, and must be used only for practical renewable applications now. A portion could be used for R&D for improving current technology, and some for the ramping up and manufacture of the products available now. Once this is in the public forum, we can then talk about how the oil companies are flush with record profits, and need to be taxed (heavily) for that. That money can be used for this too.

[Inland]

20. What's th epoint?

If renewalable energy is worth funding, its worth funding from general revenue--and there's no need to limit the burden and risk to retirees and wage earners.

I don't know why, but you seem to want to treat private accounts as found money, extra money, that can be drafted to work for the country without anyone noticing. Since in the first place it was for retirements, and the second place it was from taxes, it isn't just something lying around that nobody can see a use for. It isn't pennies on the dresser.

[slor]

24. And you seem to think that the trust fund...

does not get used for everything else already. It does, and no doubt for things that do not promote the good of the country. I am suggesting that it be used for just that purpose, renewable energy and energy conservation, which in turn, will create jobs.

[Inland]

27. But that would include USED UP, as opposed to borrowed.

Right now, the receipts are borrowed by the federal government and should be paid back. You suggest taking the receipts, privatizing them to make us the owner BUT forcibly investing them in an industry that may not pay them back. That is making wageearners take the risk with their retirements on the energy industry.

All I suggest is that renewable energy doesn't require putting the risk on old people, and forcibly taking their savings for that purpose does exactly that.

[slor]

22. "If that were the case, then the government would be doing it"...

I guess you have not been watching the assholes in charge right now. They are doing, what is best for the oil industry. We could take the large forum they have created to push the destruction of SS, and turn it around against them. They can get the concept of Peak Oil out there, into public discussion, and put forth a smart and clean energy plan. Do I really want it to come out of SS? Of course not, and if there were a larger number of smart Americans, this would not be an issue. But we are running out of oil, and many do not know or care about it, or they are not in a position to do a damn thing about it. Well the private acct issue is all over TV right now, so the Dems can take the issue, offer a compromise, and get into the public discourse a smart energy policy, that will create jobs (wait until the public hears that, and try stopping them from pushing this) and mitigate our oil use. Of course tax policies should be used tp encourage renewables this way, but they will not be, not with oil people in charge. The key is getting the influx of money into renewables, and getting people to really think about it. Hell, we even have the pentagon and other military types on our side regarding this issue.

[Inland]

28. I suppose if your gambit is to offer to screw the money out of

someone else in order to fund it, then like most programs that come out of someone else's pocket, the people getting the benefit for free aren't so opposed.

Since you offer to pick the pocket of wage earners and retirees, you might not have Steve Forbes on Fox opposing it. Yes, its true: there's no better way for a democratic proposal to get republican support than have it end up unfairly burdening working people--in other words, turn it into an unfair boondoggle. I'm not really sure why that makes it a GOOD thing.

[SnoopDog]

11. Nope. Leave Social Security Alone.

With credit to post #8 - this is a rube Goldberg approach.

What we do is, instead of taking $300 Billion Dollars of our money which I personally did not authorize to invade a country and KILL innocent Iraqis and Americans, take that money and start placing solar cells on roof tops. Year after year...more solar cells. Wind Generators. State of the art rails, You know... the stuff that makes sense only to citizens - not our government.

[slor]

13. If we could turn back time...

your idea would make sense. We have already wasted billions, and it is not coming back. We will avoid future illegal wars by getting off oil. And if we do not, we may not be around to collect any SS security checks anyway.

[SnoopDog]

17. First, the $300 billion is borrowed from us and if our lives..

depend on it which it does, we will have to pay for our new energy.

You see, getting off oil is enevitable... Not only because of Peak Oil, but because the pollution is killing our country, our earth and us.

If I was president, I would just walk into congress and say, "I need $300 Billion annually" to start putting solar cells on every roof top in America. And, I need some of those wind generators. And 2while we are at it, we need to do more geothermal energy".

Wonder what would happen?? Let's ask Congress. "Congress, we need $300 billion to illegally invade a country and we basically want to take that money and put it into the pockets of contractors. Oh, and we get to kill a mess of people. All in favor say Yes - all voted YES". "Congress, we need $300 billion to produce solar cells an put them on roof tops. We will reduce/eliminate our need for foreign energy and we will save our environment. All in... NO WAY YOU ASSHOLE. NO WON WANTS THAT. IDIOT. WE WANT TO KILL PEOPLE. WE WANT THAT MONEY FOR OUR CONTRACTORS. WE ALL VOTE NO!"

Welcome to the land of idiots.

[Selatius]

14. Diverting money out of SS won't help SS

If you want to fund SS as well as programs for developing alternative energy sources, you need to get funding through tax reform. Repealing tax cuts for the very top percentile in this country would help as well as raising capital gains tax. The poor shouldn't be the ones carrying the bulk of the burden of paying taxes.

[slor]

19. This may get people to think about it...

and the Dems will have a national forum if they bring this idea out. Quite frankly, while I want SS to be left alone, I really do not give a damn about a SS check for myself, 20 years from now, when we are creating a world where clean drinking water, or heat on a cold winter day may be a thing of the past in the very near future.

[rman]

18. individial gamble versus collective insurence - your choice

the type of stock investment is not the issue.

besides, why would anyone want to change a system that works pretty well?
to make it work very well we'd only need to up the tax cap, or remove it all together.

[renaissanceguy]

21. How about leaving FDR's program alone.

It's there to serve exactly what it says: security.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21326152

[slor]

23. You do not think...

a renewable energy supply has anything to do with security?
On edit: If he were alive today, he probably would have provided money for renewable energy and smart public transportation policies too.

[kentuck]

25. Why would it have to come out of SS ??

Why not roll back the taxcuts? Repeal the inheritance tax cuts? Cut defense spending? Cut the waste in government? Why Social Security?

[slor]

26. You are right...

in a smarter America, it would come out of those things. With these guys in charge, that is not going to happen. This idea is really to get the renewable energy issue front and center. And to provide, hopefully, a massive temporary influx of money into renewables. As we see the benefits that come from these policies, we can get investment from areas that it SHOULD come from. And the Dems can make that so by winning on a better energy policy, and all of the intrinsic benefits from it. I know it sounds radical, but we may already be too late, so we need to be radical. In time, we can return and correct the shift of funds taken from SS, but we need to fix the energy policy now.

[Bridget Burke]

29. Bad idea.

Most of the country realizes that private SS accounts are a stupid idea. There's no need to bargain them away; they are no real threat.

Let the Democrats campaign to preserve Social Security. And also let them support renewable energy solutions--separately.