Why I won't vote for Adam Smith, D-WA based on his stance on Social Security

[oxymoron]

I have voted for him for years. I visited his website and was quite disturbed by his comments on Social Security: http://adamsmith.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4460

I called his office and reminded him that the Baby Boomers have approximately 3 Trillion dollars in trust, and is fine until 2037. I received a letter back from him today.

An excerpt: "Since 1983, Social Security revenues have exceeded benefits every year, creating a surplus. Unfortunately, these surpluses will be of no help in solving the problem because all of the surplus money has been spent on other federal programs.. By 2018 the government, having borrowed all of the Social Security Surplus money, will technically owe Social Security that money back plus interest, but the government doesn't have the money. Any such payments would simply have to come out of the hide of the rest of the budget, a budget already overburdened by debt. It is true that the trust fund will have IOUs in the form of Treasury bills that can be "cashed out," but that would require borrowing money from the federal budget to repay these loans, thus further exploding the national debt."

So Baby Boomers, you are out of luck. The SS you paid for just can't be paid back because of the deficit.

Sorry, Adam. I want that 3 Trillion back.

You've lost my vote this year.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. That's a very "wide" stance....

[dflprincess]

2. Sure hope the Chinese don't find out that the U.S. is too broke to pay back money it owes.

I gather Mr. Smith didn't say anything about raising the income cap?

[oxymoron]

6. Exactly

Thank you.

[pa28]

16. The absurdity of his position in a nutshell.

When politicians such as Smith use default language I start to think the best thing might be a ten or fifteen year spend down on the trust fund with absolutely no reform or "tweaking".

Alan Simpson and his ideological peers seem to be laying the groundwork for a very strange sales job. Something along the lines of 'your retirement savings has been stolen fair and square but you need to increase your capital stake anyway'.

[uppityperson]

3. Did he vote to spend that money or are you pissed because you just found out

that it is gone and hate the messenger? Serious question, being in WA and SS age soon.

[oxymoron]

5. Of course I knew they were borrowing from SS

But I insist that it be paid back like any other Treasury bond. This is the first time I have heard a Dem that I have voted for saying that those bonds can't be honored.

[uppityperson]

7. So is it his fault? Again, is he at fault or the messenger?

Would his repub opponent be better?

As far as the note, I want to know more. Thanks for posting this.

[oxymoron]

8. I'll scan it to you if you like

[uppityperson]

11. I just read the link in the OP but am wondering if he has voted to do this.

not sure what you mean "I'll scan it to you if you like".

Congress needs to address the inequities that plague the Medicare system as well as the overall increasing cost. For example, I am an author of the MediFAIR legislation, which would make the reimbursement rates fairer for Washington State by changing some of the funding formulas so that our state's seniors are no longer punished for the efficiencies we made to our health care system a decade ago, and so that they have the same benefits as seniors in Florida or New York.

Seems ok to me as does this bit... What am I missing? And did he vote to do that? Thanks.

Social Security is a critical program that must be preserved and protected. It was originally designed to guarantee all retirees in our nation a basic, minimum income, and the need for such a social safety net is just as great today as it was then.

We need to recognize that we face a serious challenge. For the program to continue to provide its promised benefits, some changes will be required. Social Security is a “pay-as-you-go system.” Put simply, today’s workers pay taxes to cover the money paid to today’s beneficiaries. The current structure is dependent upon each generation paying into the system to support future generations. According to current estimates, in 2018 the yearly revenues generated through payroll taxes will not be enough to pay the benefits owed that same year.

Therefore, something should be done, but private accounts are not the answer. Dealing with Social Security’s long-term solvency problem now will be much easier while we have the time and flexibility to consider numerous options rather than waiting until later when our options for reform are limited.

[oxymoron]

10. No, this is the first time I have heard a Den I vote for

say that the Treasury bonds won't be honored. That is unacceptable. Perhaps a some cuts in the military budget so they can honor them?

[blondeatlast]

15. Nowhere does he say the bills won't be honored. He's just pointing out that choices must be made and

I think he explained the diffuculty facing SS funding far better--and far more honestly--than most.

Burt I can't vote for him...

[regnaD kciN]

4. So, you'd prefer a Republican House...?

I'm sure they'll protect your Social Security... :banghead:

[stray cat]

9. Surprising a GOP candidate is endorsing fully funding social security -hope he can sway the others

When the house and senate is in their hands

[oxymoron]

12. Not voting GOP

I just won't vote in this race. This is unacceptable from a Democrat.

[uppityperson]

13. Acknowledging the problem is unacceptable?

[blondeatlast]

14. Your choice, but that helps the GOBP win.

Sleep well when there is NO Social Security or it's all privatized.

[olegramps]

91. You are making a serious mistake by not voting. Rethink your position.

The solution is fair taxation of the wealthy and massive cuts in military spending.

[Heddi]

17. k

[oxymoron]

18. Why I won't vote for Adam Smith, D-WA based on his stance on Social Security

I have voted for him for years. I visited his website and was quite disturbed by his comments on Social Security: http://adamsmith.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4460

I called his office and reminded him that the Baby Boomers have approximately 3 Trillion dollars in trust, and is fine until 2037. I received a letter back from him today.

An excerpt: "Since 1983, Social Security revenues have exceeded benefits every year, creating a surplus. Unfortunately, these surpluses will be of no help in solving the problem because all of the surplus money has been spent on other federal programs.. By 2018 the government, having borrowed all of the Social Security Surplus money, will technically owe Social Security that money back plus interest, but the government doesn't have the money. Any such payments would simply have to come out of the hide of the rest of the budget, a budget already overburdened by debt. It is true that the trust fund will have IOUs in the form of Treasury bills that can be "cashed out," but that would require borrowing money from the federal budget to repay these loans, thus further exploding the national debt."

So Baby Boomers, you are out of luck. The SS you paid for just can't be paid back because of the deficit.

Sorry, Adam. I want that 3 Trillion back.

You've lost my vote this year.

[BzaDem]

19. Yeah, it makes much more sense to aide and enable a Republican who wants to gut both SS and Medicare

That's the ticket.

[regnaD kciN]

20. So, you'd prefer a Republican House...?

I'm sure they'll protect your Social Security... :banghead:

[depakid]

33. In the long run, getting rid of bad apples is in the interest of the party

AND the public.

(although to years isn't all that long to come up with a replacement).

[oxymoron]

45. My point exactly.

[uppityperson]

51. How does pointing out the problem make him a "bad apple"? Serious question

It seems he is saying there is a problem. How does this make him bad?

[depakid]

55. Most credible economists don't see it as a problem

and they guy's reinforcing right wing memes with his hyperventilating about the deficit.

Sorry- but this is precisely the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from a Dem who'd buy into cutting social security benefits or raising the retirement age.

And cross the line to the Republican side to do it.

Could be that I'm wrong- its only one statement- and my comment was meant more as a general rule than as something that should be done in this specific case.

Then again, OP's like this (along with many other more potent methods) are avenues for politicians to get feedaback on what their constituents will and will not stand.

[uppityperson]

61. Thank you, appreciate your take on it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. Better wake up and smell the coffee, Adam.

You can't dump on your constituents and expect to get re-elected.

[pnwmom]

42. Wake up and smell the cow manure.

You won't find any Rethugs doing a better job protecting Social Security.

[stray cat]

22. So what did the GOP candidate do that makes your prefer his stance on social security?

I guess he is in favor of fully finding it as otherwise it would be stupid to shoot yourself to make a point

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Sure. Speaker Boehner will do so much more to protect Social Security.

[hughee99]

24. For years, repukes have been calling SS a ponzi scheme.

if the government tells the SS trust fund (yes, I realize that's also "the government") to go fuck themselves instead of collecting on government backed securities, they'll basically be right. Also, is not a good idea to set the precedent of the govt telling T-bill holders to go fuck themselves when it's time to collect.

[blondeatlast]

25. Dunno what the entire letter said, but I followed your link and I saw that

he acknowledged that funding SS is a problem and is planning to explore ways to do so.

But if it makes you feel better to cut off your nose because you can't understand nuance, bless your heart.

[oxymoron]

28. So it's acceptable to you that the Federal Government doesn't honor Treasury bills?

[BzaDem]

29. Who said that you are entitled to be able to vote for a candidate that has "acceptable" positions on

all the issues?

Last I checked, primary elections are the way to choose candidates that have acceptable positions. There is no guarantee that any viable candidate surviving the primary has an "acceptable" position on every issue. The question is WHICH viable candidate has more acceptable positions than the other. Adults have to make choices they don't like all the time.

[blondeatlast]

36. Did I say that or did you just make that up as well?

You need a glass of wimne or maybe a nice walk.

[oxymoron]

44. Wow.

Does the snark make you feel better, hon?

[DireStrike]

54. It is inherent in what the rep is saying.

The money can't be spent already. That's impossible. It's in T-Bills which must be paid back. The only way for it not to be paid back is if the US government stops honoring its T-bills.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Smith's letter wasn't nuance. It was treason.

"Technically" the government will make good on its debts unless assholes like him get the rich off the hook.

[jtuck004]

68. + + + + + n/t

[notesdev]

26. In other words...

... because he told you the truth you're going to bail on him.

And people wonder why politicians lie.

[blondeatlast]

27. +1.

Spot on. nt

[oxymoron]

30. I see. So no problem that a Democrat is accepting this fact.

That the Fed doesn't honor Treasury bills. Perhaps some shaving of the military budget would help?

[uppityperson]

31. Acknowledging and accepting something are different things. I see him acknowledging it

Where do you see him accepting it?

[blondeatlast]

32. He never once said that. You're making stuff up--at this point, my only question is why

are you when several people have already pointed this out to you?

[oxymoron]

37. He went on to say that changes must be made to SS

I'm sorry, as I said, I will scan you the letter if you like. And the only thing he opposed was privatization. And advocated was 401Ks. I think it's a shameless position for a Dem, and the only fix I would support is raising the income cap. No, I don't make things up. I am a lifelong Dem and this entire letter was very upsetting.

[blondeatlast]

38. Apparently so--so much that you're ignoring the ugly reality that Smith is gently telling you about.

Sleep well with your precious vote. And a good ol' Suthun "Bless your heart" to you as well.

[Hannah Bell]

77. Why are all the DU activists buying into this right-wing lie?

It really makes me scratch my head.

[Jim Sagle]

78. I guess they're all 'Radical Activists' now.

;)

[Hannah Bell]

80. they sure seem pretty radical. but not in a good way.

[uppityperson]

52. Please scan the letter and post it or pm a link to me. I'd like to see it all

since all I can tell is you are really upset because he told the truth about a problem.

[Recursion]

34. As he sees it the problem is that the Government does honor them

He points out, correctly, that honoring those bills will require either a large increase in taxes, a large decrease in discretionary spending, or a large increase in the deficit (or some combination). Which of those do you want to do?

[oxymoron]

39. I would support an increase in the income cap.

And major cuts to the military.

[Recursion]

40. Very well. Increase in taxes and cuts in military spending

Now, find a way to get that through Congress.

Oh, and while "cuts in military spending" sounds great, how much, and from what programs? I hope it's not the one that includes my job...

Defense spending in 2010 was about $600 billion. How much of that do you want to get rid of? (I'll grant $150 billion of "overseas contingency operations" -- ie, the wars -- as a given to get rid of.)

[HuckleB]

50. I think there was a study released today that shows that the rich save their tax cut money...

...they don't spend it. So let's cut to the chase, and take of people with that money.

[notesdev]

35. It would help

but it wouldn't come even close to solving the problem.

The reality which we can either face with maturity or get smacked in the face with when everything blows up (which is soon), is that Congresses and Presidents of both parties looted all the money that was supposed to be held in trust for SS, year after year, for decades, and nobody did a thing to stop them.

Now we get to face the consequences.

There is no way for that shortfall to be made up with either taxing or borrowing. The Boomer generation is too large to be supported by debt heaped upon smaller successive generations.

People are going to have to learn to make do with less. We can no longer greedily and irresponsibly borrow from posterity; they've not even been born yet, many of them, and they're already at their credit limit.

[HuckleB]

49. He's chosen the expedient route, with "the truth."

He's clearly a part of the problem, and, yeah, I'm sure that a GOPer would be just as much of a problem, if not more.

[Hannah Bell]

74. "The truth" = "we're going to screw you." Why should I vote for that?

[notesdev]

82. The truth = "you've already been screwed, this is the day after"

[Hannah Bell]

102. no one is screwed until they refuse to pay back the money they borrowed from SS.

responses like your facilitate that robbery.

[notesdev]

109. Where do you think that money comes from?

You think they're going to somehow give back money they spent years, even decades ago?

The only way they can get that money is to borrow it (not assured that there will be that much available to be borrowed), create it out of thin air (making the payouts worth a fraction of the actual value people expect to receive), or to take it from younger folks, who are already being crushed with education and housing debt, to say nothing of credit cards, car loans, etc.

Which of the above do you think will actually work?

[pnwmom]

41. Brilliant! Make it easier for the Rethugs to dismantle S.S. completely.

Stand tall! Sarah and Glenn will love you for it!

[mitchtv]

65. Palin! Booooooooooooooooo!

quaint argument

[Hannah Bell]

75. What difference does it make who does the screwing if either way you get screwed?

[handmade34]

43. 2 words... "Speaker Boehner"

please think twice :patriot:

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. "Technically" my ass, you fuckwad. n/t

[HuckleB]

47. Ugh. What is Smith drinking, or smoking, or injecting?

Yeah, yeah. Ad hominem city. But dang. And you're getting into something beyond baby boomers and into Gen X, and, of course, the reality is that this would affect all coming generations.

[starroute]

53. I do not believe what I'm seeing on this thread

Anybody with a job has been paying 7.65% of their total income, year in and year out, since 1983, with the promise that the money would be there when it came time to retire.

Various administration nudged into the trust fund here and there -- but the really big hit came when George W. Bush decided to raid it to cut taxes for his rich friends.

And now any number of people on this thread are saying, "Sorry, done deal. The money's gone. Suck it up and move on."

If you haven't noticed, none of the people who want us to accept cuts in Social Security are suggesting that the rate we pay should change. We're expected to keep paying in at 7.65% forever -- only presumably now that money is going to cover the Bush deficit and not for our own retirement.

And that 7.65% is one of the most regressive taxes we've got. It starts with the first dollar earned by even the poorest, part-time, minimum-wage worker. And it cuts out at a little over $100,000. But you'd rather have that minimum-wage worker pay the bills than ask the millionaires for another penny in income tax.

Frankly, I'm disgusted.

[oxymoron]

56. Well put

I agree completely.

[notesdev]

58. You're disgusted?

How do you think I have felt for 20+ years in the workforce, paying those taxes and knowing for most of those years that there was not a prayer in hell that I would see any of that returned to me?

How do you think I feel paying those taxes when I know for certain that the system can't survive the generation before mine?

You think maybe I feel betrayed every time I see that line on my paycheck? Lied to? Defrauded? You bet I do.

[starroute]

62. And why did you fall for that lie?

Who told you the system "can't survive" the Baby Boomers? That was never true. It was always propaganda designed to turn the generations against one another and get younger voters to conclude Social Security was an empty promise that held nothing for them.

If you've been suffering for 20+ years because of a lie, I'm truly sorry for you.

[notesdev]

66. It's no lie

The money isn't there. Where do you think it's going to come from? Current payments are already insufficient for current payouts, and the Boomers have barely begun to retire.

If you really think that SS is going to be there for you, you're in for one very rude awakening.

It sure ain't going to be paid for by the unemployed and debt slaves struggling under their own massive education/housing/credit bubble debt.

[Hannah Bell]

76. It *is* a lie. Current payments are insufficient for payouts because they were *planned* to be;

that's why we paid extra for 30 years.

They can't turn around now & act like it's a crisis when they planned it & touted it as the salvation of SS in 1983.

And your support for this lie just helps them steal your money.

[notesdev]

81. they *already* stole your money

I was complaining about it from the moment I first found out.

But it was the "third rail of American politics" so it was deliberately ignored until now.

Of course it's a crisis, all that money was stolen and spent and now the program is in the red.

Again, where's the money coming from? All SS has are IOUs from Treasury which in turn must borrow to raise it. Who is going to lend the tens of trillions needed to support the boomers through their retirements? No one.

None of that money exists, as Congresses and Presidents of both parties have spent it all, every single year. Go look it up - SS surpluses have been folded into general revenue every year and replaced by worthless pieces of paper ("special" treasuries) that can't even be sold on the open market to raise cash.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. ...Much like you stole your mortgage from the bank. n/t

[notesdev]

93. if you took out a loan you knew you could not pay back, yeah

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. And the bank has no obligation to at least make you try? n/t

[notesdev]

98. They can foreclose and take it away from you... which is what is guaranteed to happen with SS

[Hannah Bell]

103. bullshit. SS can easily be paid back by rescinding the bush tax cuts to the top 1% alone.

seems like a fairfax economist ought to know that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. If government has no intention of repaying its debts, SS solvency is the least of our problems. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

106. "IOUs from Treasury" = just like warren buffett.

no one needs to lend anything.

rescind the bush tax cuts on the top 1% = problem solved.

and...

Keep in mind, investors vote every day as to whether they think the deficits are a problem or not (through their purchases of US Treasuries) And, every day, they vote "No"; the deficits are not a problem. The 10-Treasury is currently under 3% (2.82%) while the 2-year is a paltry .57%. The appetite for risk-free liquid assets on the part of the public is so great that they will commit their money to an investment that yields less than 3% over a 10-year period of time. Think about that. That alone should prove that hyperinflation is a mirage invented by demagogues.

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney09132010.html


as are the "problems" with borrowing.

[stranger81]

69. Believe it. Our party has been hijacked from the inside. [n/t]

[pa28]

72. We have our share of born victims don't we?

Fortunately I think the general public will be less inclined to go along with Smith's idea.

They'll want more than a glib one sentence explanation as to why they need to accept cuts, privatization or additional FICA to further prop up the system without any of the original principle being paid back.

Unfortunately they'll need to be aware of what might happen before the Simpson commission report is issued because by that time the window for discussion or accountability at election time will be closed and time is running out.

[Fumesucker]

84. It appears that nearly half the DUers on this thread are willing to go along with Smith..

At least as long as he keeps a "D" in front of his name..

And we are supposed to be the liberals.. :puke:

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. You're not the only one. +1

[bluethruandthru]

105. The worst part is how the right has been feeding Americans the "SS wont' be there for you" line.

We baby boomers have been told for years that social security will never be there for us. I think that's been done on purpose so when it's gone, we won't be upset and fight to keep it. That's exactly the attitude I see from many of my friends and coworkers. They just don't care because they've been trained to think that they'll never see it anyway.

[jtuck004]

57. The money was borrowed from SS - it is not borrowing to pay

back what you owe. Not paying it back would be theft, however.

And, frankly, if the Democrat doesn't stand up for the issues that are important to a voter, then the party just screwed up in letting them be there or run, and they may lose power. Don't use scare tactics - that's a rethuglican ideal - tell the Democrat that they need to support the policies that have been part of this party for 80 years. If they can't stand up for the principles of the party they joined without selling out for short-term gain (that's what Wall Street and big business did that gave us this financial crisis, btw). And, frankly, if that leads to a Republican victory for the seat, perhaps a few Democratic party folks ought to be tossed out the door with the office holder, and we can find people who will support our issue next time.

If they want to be a Republican they should change their damn party affiliation and be honest with the voters. Don't think you are going to garner my vote by being two-faced.

Oxy, I agree with you 100%. Blaming a Democrat for not voting against their own best interests is like blaming the victim for his or her rape. Their actions likely had nothing to do with it - the crime was violence against a person.

For them to spout the arguments of our opponents as a rationale for voting against my interests or issue is not my damn fault. It's the fault of whatever politician decided to give up that office by voting against my issue. And don't tell me the opposition won't protect my interests. You have already been bought off, and have lost all credibility, as well as any of your supporters.

I am not an apologist for any politician, nor an arm of any politicians office. I am a voter with interests, and expect those interests to be addressed.
I don't make excuses for people who try to influence policy in a way that would take away benefits paid in by people who might be hurt by losing those benefits without having the years needed to make up for it. I will disagree with such a policy in as public a forum a possible and make sure the people they affect know who is doing what. Nothing to apologize for.

And, hey, Oxy, if they don't like it, there's other people who will...

[oxymoron]

59. Thanks, jtuck004

This issue was my last straw. I have voted a mostly straight Dem ballot in every election for 35 years, often holding my nose while doing so. I will not be voting for any Dem that assists in weakening SS. Those income caps need to be raised immediately and the surplus needs to be paid back.

[jtuck004]

63. I'm 56, my dad got me into politics by helping

the first Republican gov in Oklahoma get elected. I wasn't old enough to vote then, and I have only voted for one Repub since - in the days b4 they were mostly batshit crazy. But I did learn to put up signs and operate a phone ;)

People either need to stick with their principles and issues, or go to the dark side. I learned that from Clinton. He was, and still is, a hero for this country, in my eyes anyway. He raised taxes, and had better job creation than any modern president. ANY PRESIDENT FOR DECADES. (Maybe ever, haven't gone back that far).

He did that because government investment in a thing called the ARPANET was made public as the Internet. The taxes decreased the deficit. So increasing taxes and government investment helped our financial situation and created jobs, far more than the industries that were busily moving them offshore to gain short-term profits.

That said, he made a mistake by listening to Rubin (et al) and supporting the repeal of the last piece of Glass-Steagall, and signing the one piece of legislation that allowed Wall Street to bring us 30 million (and increasing) unemployed and underemployed neighbors, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act., which allowed for off-the-books Enron-style accounting, without which it is very likely that the housing disaster would have been far less of a tragedy. Could those firms have backed off their 40 to 1 borrowing, been more responsible, not spent their time selling subprime loans to people of color while they sold better interest-rate loans to white people, not sold loans to unsophisticated borrowers by telling them they could just refi the house in a few months so they could collect mountains of fees, that they really didn't need a bunch of paper to prove their assets or a job? Sure. Their actions were not his fault. And, to his credit, he has said that signing that bill was a mistake. And it's our fault that we haven't insisted that our present administration put these people in prison.

But his real mistake was sacrificing, however briefly, his principles and adopting the viewpoint of ex-Goldman Government? Sachs employees, pseudo-democrats (with neo-liberal conservative economic policies riddling their empty, black souls) in his administration, the policies that the Republicans wanted.

If we don't learn from that, what's the point in even having a party?

[olegramps]

94. I agree very much with your post.

The Democrats firmly opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagall as
did President Clinton until a compromise was arranged in which
the Republicans agreed to ban red-lining to deny minorities
equal access to finaning. The Republicans have latched on to
that aspect as being the major reason for the collapse which
of course is a lie by blaming defaults by minorities as the
major factor. But when didn't the filty Republicans lie? 

[jtuck004]

97. I personally think (just my opinion) that compromise is highly overrated.

We compromised with N Korea (probably had to, or fight china) and others who know more detail might take me to task on that, which is fine. But we are still at odds with them.

But even though there were times when we could have lost against Germany or Japan, we fought, and won, against agressors. And that pretty much ended things for many years.

But here we are talking about relatively peaceful politics, and I think sometimes we compromise when we don't have to, very likely for backroom compensation (in some respect) that the public never sees.

I would rather have a leader that steps out, says what they mean and lives it, even if there is a cost in the short-term. Non one says you have to quit when you lose a battle. Life is a lot longer and more important than that.

~.02 cents worth ;)

Thank you for the post

[Hannah Bell]

104. i agree. people like bill gates *don't* compromise. why should we?

[sabrina 1]

71. Good post, thank you. No Democrat who lies about SS

like this will get my support either. Nor should they. It is stupid, as you point out to vote against one's own best interests.

[Recursion]

85. "it is not borrowing to pay back what you owe"

No but paying it back will require either

A) More borrowing,
B) Less discretionary spending, or
C) Higher taxes

Which one do you want?

[lonestarnot]

60. Ugh oh! You gona git it! IBTL

:spank: :spank: :spank: Don't forget about the country.

[jtuck004]

64. I hope you are wrong about the lock

What's the point of voting for DINOs? If they won't stand up for what the people of this party said it stood for many years ago, there really isn't
much point in fighting for them.

This could be a good discussion.

[comtec]

79. The GoP thanks you for your vote!

because if you don't vote for him, you might as well vote for the thug.
it's distasteful as hell, but the time to bring this issues up with your candidate is in the primary!
that's WHY we have primaries!

Need you be reminded of the rule about supporting a non-democratic candidate in an election?

[HughMoran]

67. oxy

[sabrina 1]

70. Good for you. He should be ashamed of himself.

Either he doesn't understand the SS system, or he's lying. Either way he should not be respresenting Democrats in this fight.

Are there no better candidates, who actually care about the American people? I think I will call his office also, even though he's not in my district. Democrats need to know that even talk of cuts to SS or that 'the money isn't there', will lose them the election.

[Hannah Bell]

73. write him back & tell him he's full of shit & you're going to tell everyone you know the same.

[oxymoron]

83. Oh, I certainly will.

I am also calling Senator Cantwell's office again. Her office said that she has "made no statement" on SS cuts.

[dionysus]

90. at least you've dropped the pretense, and are openly campaigning against the dems now.

you rock comrade bell.

:patriot:

[Hannah Bell]

101. telling a democratic candidate he's full of shit when he tells the voters their social security

money is "spent" & more money going out than coming in (as planned in 1983) = "something must be done" = "campaigning against the dems"?

do tell.

that story is full of shit. whether it's a pub or dem telling it.

i don't consider it a win to get robbed by a dem rather than a pub.

[blueworld]

86. Well, I have one sincere question: would he reconsider if elected?

In other words, I understand his pathetic position at the moment, but you said you have experience with him as your Rep. If enough constituents scream, is he reasonable enough to reconsider or simply too stubborn to budge?

I have one who basically reconsiders nuthin', that's why I'm asking.

[LynneSin]

87. So you support John Boener as Speaker of the House?

Because THAT is what you are ultimately vote for.

We had primaries to get great candidates on the ballot. There is absolutely nothing you can tell me that would help me make Boehner Speaker of the House.

[AngryOldDem]

99. In my state the Dem candidate is hostile toward gays and is anti-choice.

He was given the nomination through the blessing of the state powers-that-be. So I'm to hold my nose YET AGAIN and vote for him because he's got a D after his name, and basically get the same shit if he takes office that I would get if he had an R after his name?

Fuck that shit. If it takes a bad loss in November for the Democrats to do some housecleaning and get back to party basics, then so be it. I am sitting out the Senate race this year. But I do plan to support Dems in other local and state races.

Flame away. I'm coming to the conclusion that as a voter I'm screwed no matter what I do anymore, so makes no difference to me what anyone else thinks.

[LynneSin]

100. You're right, the guy is an asshole

I wouldn't doubt that one bit.

And if this was the primaries I would be here supporting the other person.

But if the race is close this is more than just one candidate. We're fighting for control of the house, which yes, the house hasn't be perfect these past few years but heck of alot better than under republican control.

Don't think of yourself voting for this guy but NOT voting for John Boehner.

[oxymoron]

108. Agree with you 100%

[closeupready]

92. I don't blame you. I won't say that I endorse this, but

I do understand your feelings, and I K&R on the basis of that.

[karynnj]

95. I understand your anger at what was likely the premeditated theft of that money

but your representative is expressing what many think might be reality. One question might be what his position is on tax cuts to the wealthy. This appears to be something that is splitting pretty sharply by party.

The way to think of what happened in the Reagan years is that people like Reagan and Greenspan simultaneously increased the comparatively regressive FICA taxes to shore up SS anticipating the retirement of the baby boomers and lowered the income tax rates. Then they put the excess SS into the revenue side of what they released as the budget deficit. The legislation REQUIRED the surplus be put into these bonds because nothing else was as safe. Having thought that it was prescient to consider the impact of the large baby boom generation retiring, it is obnoxious to think that that money was in fact stolen quite openly.

Even before all the wars, Greenspan knew that there was no real surplus - yet he strongly supported the Bush tax cuts that on there own would have made repaying the S trust fund unlikely. After the wars started and the deficit really accelerated, on NPR, he spoke even in 2003 or 2004 about that money - which incidentally was STILL accumulating - was gone. Now, at the point he admitted it was gone, he did not call for rolling back the tax cuts and on an ongoing basis (at least) keeping the SS money separate. Restarting in 2004 would have still lost the considerable surplus generated in the 1980s and 1990s, but it would be better than where we are now. (In addition, there could have been no, "we can't raise taxes in a recession, because we were not in a recession".)

Remember Al Gore wanted to put the SS fund in a lock box? No one should think that funny now. The fact is that the government from the 1980s to the present has allowed a huge shift in taxes from the wealthy, who bear more of the income tax to everyone else whoe increase in FICA taxes was greater than the cumulative cuts in SS.

Getting back to your representative, I suspect the question is how he wants to go forward. It sounds like he is saying that all the money can not be recovered by receiving money as needed out of the federal budget by cashing the bonds. It would seem that maybe reviving the estate tax and dedicating any revenue from it to SS might be a good start. In a way, this would be fair because it is extremely likely that a considerable part of those estates came from the tax savings (and investment gain on them) they got from the lower tax rates. The same might be said to making capital gains subject to some FICA tax as well.

What seems clear is that the government needs to somehow get sufficient revenues to keep their SS promises.

It is likely that your representative will support fairer ideas than his Republican opponent.