In an interview with the Washington Times published yesterday, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) promised to privatize Social Security:
Q: Where does Social Security reform stand?
A: I just met with Congressman [Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican], a few minutes ago with his SAFE Commission [formed to fix the entitlement programs]. In 1990 when I first ran for Congress, I talked about the need to reform these big entitlement programs because the sooner we began the process, the easier it would be to make the necessary changes so that these programs were sustainable for the long term. … If I’m around in a leadership role come January, we’re going to get serious about this.
Privitization plans championed by Boehner and others would sharply cut guaranteed benefits and are opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Nevertheless, Boehner is just the latest prominent conservative to reaffirm his commitment to privatize Social Security in the months and years to come.
President Bush, 6/27/06:
Now is the time for the Congress and the President to work together to reform Medicare and reform Social Security so we can leave behind a solvent balance sheet for our next generation of Americans. … If we can’t get it done this year, I’m going to try next year. And if we can’t get it done next year, I’m going to try the year after that, because it is the right thing to do.
White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, 6/17/06:
Looking ahead to next year, he is trying to lay the groundwork for a renewed effort to reform Social Security and Medicare, the federal health-care program for seniors. He suggests Mr. Bush and his aides may have learned from their failed attempt to push through Social Security reform in 2005.
House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery (R-LA), 6/6/06:
Congress should make Social Security overhaul its top priority next year, while a rewrite of the tax code and revamping the nation’s healthcare system probably will wait until at least 2009, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery, R-La., said today.
Oh man, I am soooooo for the republicans to push this. Social Security is a great thing to delve into shortly before an election. Man the republicans will be dropping like flies.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:20 pmIf I’m around in a leadership role come January, we’re going to get serious about this. - John Boehner
I wouldn’t be making any serious plans yet, little fella.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:21 pmWhy are Democrats so opposed to reforming Social Security? Do they honestly believe the system can be continued as-is?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:23 pmDailyKermit has an article that the presription drug plan has solid support by senior citizens, so similar plans to privatize social security will also be popular. Whether you like it or not, either we create private accounts in which individuals can make equity investments, or you will have to severely cut benefits / payouts in a couple decades. To refill the SS coffers, the government will have to start tasking home ownership and 401K’s, punishing those who saved wisely.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:25 pmWoops - taxing, not tasking…
July 31st, 2006 at 6:25 pmNo Chase I do think some reforms needs to be done. However the model the republicans wish to use to reform SS hasn’t worked in any country it has been tried in. SS could be made solvent and work, but it doesn’t need to be destroyed. The very term reform to the republicans, means to eliminate SS all together. Not to create a meaningful reform of the system.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:25 pmI think we’d all be wise to NOT plan on Social Security for retirement. It’s not going to be there.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:27 pmSS would have been okay for far longer, if the republicans had not raided it to finance the war in Iraq.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:28 pmWell every time Social Security reform is brought up, Democrats do nothing but attack, attack, attack and spout shit like “Social Security is fine. The GOP wants to scrap it and take away benefits to seniors and have them eat cat food!”
I would like to hear, Krazny or anyone, what is a good first step in keeping Social Security solvent.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:29 pm“He suggests Mr. Bush and his aides may have learned from their failed attempt to push through Social Security reform in 2005.”
I was not aware that they are capable of learning.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:29 pmThe republicans are trying to cut and run on social security
July 31st, 2006 at 6:32 pmThe prescription drug plan demonstrates that individuals are capable of making their own decisions about the plans that suit their needs best, so a similar set of choices that allow citizens paying into SS to buy bonds, stocks, REIT’s, whatever has now been demonstrated to be feasible.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:32 pmPrivatize SS? NOT JUST NO—BUT HELL NO!!!
July 31st, 2006 at 6:33 pm#12, Bluedog,
Yes, liberal answer is to tax the rich to carry those who didn’t wisely manage their money.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:33 pmAlso chase see my comment #9. Or how about pay back the money borrowed by the government. That would be a good start point anyway. The democrats don’t have to attack on this issue. Anyone stupid enough to attempt to change or SS is going to be run through the mud by the AARP.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:33 pm#12 - Are you going to cap benefits later? If someone pays in, say 5 times as much over their working life than someone else, are the entitled to 5 times the benefits?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:34 pm#20 - I don’t expect other to take care of me. I understand that by the time I hit retirement age (whatever it may be in 2050 or so) Social Security won’t be there for me. I resent the fact I have to pay in to a system that I will never recieve any benefit from.
There is a degree of self-responsiblity that needs to be exercised when it comes to personal finance, health care, etc.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:40 pmTo refill the SS coffers, the government will have to start tasking home ownership and 401K’s, punishing those who saved wisely.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 31, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Home ownership is already taxed: If you own a home you have to pay property taxes, once or twice a year.
401ks are also already taxed: They are simply tax-deferred plans. But you will have to pay taxes when taking out your money.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:40 pm#17, Krazny,
and the net effect of doing nothing is severe cuts in benefits, or taxing those who were wise enough to save and invest on their own.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:41 pmBurying the lede….
If….it is beginning to sink in….the hubris washes away..
July 31st, 2006 at 6:42 pmEntitlements are for the RICH! gimee gimee gimee
July 31st, 2006 at 6:44 pm#22, Gregor,
Yes, but since homes and 401K’s will be the largest collections of wealth in the country, the government will tax them at even higher rates than before to compensate.
Keep dreaming about donut-hole rage - LOL. The seniors were approached about insurance to “fill” those holes, and they also realize how much they saved all year, in spite of paying a little at the end of the year.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:44 pmSo, we do a little math.
The average retirement age is 65.
2050 - 2006 = 44
65 - 44 = 21
There is Chase’s problem. He is only 21.
Gregor Samsa. How could you expect a 21 year old to know that housing is already taxed and so are 401Ks?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:45 pmChase,
Social Security is the last “treasure” the Republicans have yet to raid and clean out. How about not letting them get their hands on it. Privatizing social security is going to enrich the rich investors (Friends of Bushco), and give the appearance that the markets are strong with the one time infusion of cash.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:46 pmWhy not tax-free retirement accounts. You deposit some percentage of your income into an account that you cannot touch until you either reach 65 (or whatever retirement age) or become disabled and can no longer work.
If you want to deposit a greater percentage, you can. If you want to deposit less, go right ahead. It’s your call. Once a year you can adjust the percentage, but other than that, it’s an automatic deduction.
Just thinking…
July 31st, 2006 at 6:47 pmMr. Hendler,
I am not suggesting we do nothing. The problem is the privatization scheme you recommend, has been disastrous in every country it has been enacted. I don’t think we should remove caps as bluedog has suggested, but a change in caps may be necessary. I also don’t agree with your overall philosophy, but we can leave that do another time.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:49 pm#27 - Actually, I figure by then the retirement age will be somewhere north of 70. I’m 23.
If you’re going to say my age is a problem, what is your age?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:49 pmChase,
The problem is that the government has already been taking social security tax from my paychecks for 22 years. If we are going to start over and hold each person accountable for thier own retirement, I want my 27,000 dollars back now please.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:50 pmSpudge_Boy,
he!
Those sweet years when you could mooch off mom and dad, eh?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:51 pmYou know,
I’m kinda excited to see the staged town meetings in which GDUB pitches privatizing social security, and people stand up and tell him how much they love his idea, while reading cue cards made by Karl Rove.
They remind me of the 99.9% approval rate that Saddam used to get in National referendums.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:51 pm#33 - I completely understand that. To me, that’s the highest hurdle.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:52 pm#33, For Truth,
There are methods of seguing to ensure that you stay covered. Privatization is aimed mostly at younger generations, so that they pay partially into the old system to support your retirement, and partially into a new one that will be there when they retire.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:53 pmChase you seem to know more about politics than the average 23 year old, but you are still 23, you don’t have the life experiences to be making the kind of judgements you make. Let me guess, finances have never really been a problem for you? No wonder you fall in line with the Republicans, its your bread and butter. If you had to work for all the things you wanted/needed since the age of 11, and had to pay your own way through college, and are currently paying back loans, bought your own vehicles with money you actually had to go to work and save for, I bet your tune would be very different.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:54 pmWow, a whopping 23. Yes, your age is a problem. You haven’t grown up yet. Come see me in ten years, when you are almost as old as I am. I am 36. I’ve been in the military, something I know you would never do and I have traveled outside of the US, something that probably scares the crap out of you. Chicken hawk. Bwak bwak bwak.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:55 pm#27 - By the way, I never said 401k’s or homes weren’t taxed. Keep that straight, broseph.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:55 pm#33
Me too, I want my money back.
Oh, and since I don’t agree with the war in Iraq, or with the money we give to Israel, so I want the portion of my tax money that goes to Iraq and Israel back!
July 31st, 2006 at 6:56 pmI understand that by the time I hit retirement age (whatever it may be in 2050 or so) Social Security won’t be there for me.
Comment by Chase — July 31, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
Your understanding is incorrect.
The President referred to the SSA projection, which calculates that the system’s trust fund will be depleted in 2042. After that, the system would have legal authority to pay only 73 percent of currently promised benefits — and that figure would decline each year after, reaching 68 percent in the year 2075.
The CBO doesn’t project trust-fund depletion until a decade later, in 2052, and figures that the benefits cuts wouldn’t be so severe, a reduction to 78% of promised benefits. But either way, even a “bankrupt” system would continue to provide most of what’s promised currently.
Bush’s State of the Union: Social Security “Bankruptcy?”
Social Security is not heading towards bankruptcy. Even in the worst case scenario, it would still cover 73% of the current benefits. That is, assuming nothing is done to tweak the system to provide full 100% coverage, and that economic conditions will not change between now and 2042.
I resent the fact I have to pay in to a system that I will never recieve any benefit from.
You can rest assured.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:57 pmHad Jesus privatized his miraculous distribution of loaves and fish many would have starved to death.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:57 pm#42, Jebus,
Go run to Canada - hippie!
July 31st, 2006 at 6:58 pm#38 - Actually, I would put my family in the lower-end of the “middle-class” income bracket. My college education was paid for 100% through merit scholarships and federal and state grants and loans. My parents never paid a cent out of pocket. I will pay it all back after law school.
And #39 - Congratulations on your exploits. Actually, I’ve been out the country (never to anywhere but the 3rd world, in fact) and as for military service: I’m very seriously considering JAG. Or does that not count?
July 31st, 2006 at 7:01 pmSocial Security needs to stay as it stands, so when it does run out, people like Chase can join the class action suit to get their money back. If it goes private, the responsibility to honor the promise goes bye-bye.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:02 pmHow did you get your wheels Chase?
July 31st, 2006 at 7:03 pmIt’s every man for himself,republican style. Careful what you wish for though, because the flip side of that coin will be ugly.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:05 pmNope, sure doesn’t.
Congratulation on leaving the country. Now, this time spend time with those third world people and learn something. Then come see me in about 10 years.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:06 pm#48 - Handed down.
#49 - Alright man.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:06 pmYeah thats the Republican way, every man for himself, until something happens where they need someone to help them.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:07 pmChase got his car for free, whatever condition it was in, it was free. Sorry Chase, if your family can give you a car, money has never been a really big problem for you, so continue to fall in line, follow the money, and work hard to become a lawyer. We all know what the priority of a lawyer is.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:09 pmwow, Republicans just can’t help but screw up whatever they touch.
Gread Over People every day. Let’s guess who’ll manage the private accounts… Halliburton or Dubai?
July 31st, 2006 at 7:10 pm#46 Another truthful disclosure from a troll, NOTTTT everything said by these turds is a lie just like their dopey masters. A 98 lb. pimplefaced white supremecist
July 31st, 2006 at 7:11 pmI am really hoping they push and push hard on this issue. I cannot think of any greater gift to the democratic party, then an attempt to destroy Social Security.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:11 pm#54 - You have no idea about my family, and to truth be told, it’s none of your business anyway. But don’t confuse yourself into thinking because I’m conservative, it must mean I come complete with a silver spoon firmly deposited in my chops. The reality is, I’m the first college attendee (much less graduate) from my family. I busted my ass, opened doors for myself through hard work. My parents sacrificed more than I can even imagine for me. I never waited around for someone to help me - I was proactive, and did it on my own.
And the reason I want to be a lawyer is to make sure criminals receive the justice they deserve. What, you thought I wanted to be a tax attorney, or some pinche criminal defense lawyer? Ha.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:15 pmformer (R),
Chase is probably full of lies. He says on one hand he had to get grants, scholarships to attend college, but his familly could afford to give him a “hand me down” car. That’s incongruent to me. My wife’s family has money, and they gave her “hand me down” cars. Not all families with money buy the kids a brand new car. In fact a lot of people with money are stingy with it, thats how they got it.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:16 pm#59 - You were the one with an interest in my personal background. I tell you and you dismiss it because, nah, it couldn’t be. Jackass.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:19 pmAhh Chase,
A prosecuter. Your so rightous, your gonna clean up society, while maintaining all of the defendants are guilty and need to be punished to the full extent of the law. I too was very idealistic at your age, I too was going to fix society. This is why you need to come back in 10 years and we can talk to you.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:19 pmChase,
Resorting to the old attacks, did I hit a nerve with you? You know the truth and I don’t, isn’t that enough?
July 31st, 2006 at 7:21 pm#61 - Maybe I’m idealistic. But I’m not out to clean up society -I know that’s not likely to happen. I’m out to do all I can to ensure that when someone gets caught committing a crime, they pay their rightful debt to society. That’s all.
#62 - It is enough.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:24 pmChase,
July 31st, 2006 at 7:24 pmI am interested in your credibility, and to what level your credibility is at. When you resort to calling me a “jackass” you are helping me find where your credibility is at. I also think you have no credibility in discussing social security, as I feel you have not been in the real world (acedamia is far from it), and you have never really had financial problems.
Social security is in good shape. There will be a surplus in the account until 2017. According to Century Foundation the most recent (2006) shows that the gap in the fund after 2040 can be closed by small adjustments in revenues/benefits. Social security has been robust for 70 years and can be for another 70 years without drastic overhaul. Tinkering with the nature of SS will leave it in instability.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:24 pmThe greedy Republicans want to mess with it so they can get their greedy friends’ hands on it, and keep up the corporate contrubutions to their campaigns.
All the “old” people won’t go for it, they already have a huge headache when their medical care was messed with.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:30 pmLet’s reform the system. Let’s let the people that “reformed” the savings and loan industry reform social security. Let’s let the people that brought us Tyco, and Enron reform the system. What do you think will happen when those lying greedy bastards get their hands on your social security deposits. Do you seriously think that 401k accounts can’t be raided or defrauded. And when it happens these scumbag senators will fall all over each other saying “who could have predicted someone would steal retirement money from Americans.” But the money will still be gone and no one will be held to account.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:33 pmWell, I’m sorry you dismiss what I say because of my age or lack of “relevant” work experience. That’s pretty short-sighted of you, if you ask me.
However, I’m sorry, that’s not going to prevent me from voicing my honest opinion.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:33 pm#6 - You need to stay current on the love for the bush drug plan:
I live in Arizona in a retirement community. Many people hitting the “donut hole” are pissed and remember, this was forced on them. Sign up or have no coverage. Seniors support is no longer a given when it comes to repubs.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:34 pmChase,
On the positive side, its good to see a 23 year old interested in political issues, most are interested in getting laid (as I was), at 23. I feel bad for ripping you up. But you decided to comment here, a 23 year old can get shredded in these parts. Just be fair with the evidence when you get to put people away for crimes they supposedly committed.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:35 pm#70 - Trust me, my interests are many.
As committed as I am to making sure criminals are brought to justice, I’m equally committed to “doing the right thing”. I like to that that, even for a conservative, I’m ethical and fair.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:38 pmJason, I’m a doc and I see the horribly failed medicare drug benefit daily. If you think that this program is a success you are deluded. This donut hole crap is a ripoff, seniors “have” to buy supplemental insurance they previously didn’t need to fill the “hole”, and the payback on money invested in the supplemental insurance is pennies on the dollar. If you didn’t pick a supplemental plan they assigned you to a plan, a much higher cost plan that everyone else rejected. It is a horrible failure and I see seniors daily, a lot of seniors, and they are pissed. So by all means kepp telling that voting block what a great success the program is…then the Dems can clean all the republocriminals out of office.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:42 pmSouthwest Bob,
Just curious - did you always live in AZ?
Chase,
July 31st, 2006 at 7:44 pmPlease, Come back when you’ve had actual life experience. You’re frickin’ new to pubic hair, for crissake. (Zooey, that one’s for you!)
You want to restore SS. Once the Dems win in November, review every corrupt contract by the Bushites. For every contract not fufilled according to negotiated terms (we paid you 100 million for 100 Iraqi clinics, most of which were never built, we’re taking ALL the money back). Put it first into SS. You’ll have billions in SS surplus.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:45 pm#73 - Only if you promise to stay away until you’ve found an education - or at the least come with a informed point of view.
Oh, no can do? OK then, I’ll just stick around.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:48 pmBones,
First of all Great Name!
Second, you’re right, SS would be FINE if Dumbya would stop RAIDING it.
Put that $$ back.
I remember a problem during Carter’s Administration with SS.
One or two adjustments, problem was solved.
This current Administration simply want to keep as many people down as possible.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:50 pmOnly the rich would benefit from the removal of SS.
Chase,
July 31st, 2006 at 7:51 pmI hold 2 degrees.
Biotechnology. Physical Therapy.
Idiot
Trueblue…. Have been here 5+ years…..
July 31st, 2006 at 7:54 pmYep, that’s the difference between intelligent people and Dumbya. Like too many people today, it’s broken - throw it away and get a new one vrs no, fix it and make it work. There are only a dozen things I can think of off the top of my head (and I’m sure any intelligent economist, problem solver, mom who has to support a family and balance the checkbook) could offer that would “fix” the system.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:55 pmSouthwest Bob,
July 31st, 2006 at 7:55 pmThanks. I didn’t figure you for a native. I don’t know why.
Are you originally from more northern territory, if I may be so bold as to ask?
trueblue - Wonderful.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:59 pmTrueblue — Originally from Minn….but grew up and spent all my adult life in central CA.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:00 pmWow Jason…
I though it was the kool-Aid you admitted to drinking everyday
but now it’s clear that I’m talking to a 10 year old.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:02 pmI’ve got a plan to fund social security!!!
Take all the money that is now being spent in Iraq and divert it to something useful like…….. OUR OWN CITIZENS!!!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:02 pmThere are only a dozen things I can think of off the top of my head (and I’m sure any intelligent economist, problem solver, mom who has to support a family and balance the checkbook) could offer that would “fix†the system.
Comment by bones
You are so right, Bones.
I am a coupon cutting, fairly struggling mom myself. I never buy milk @ the grocery store- it’s too expensive. I pay ~2.00 less @ Cumberland Farms. Cheese? NEVER @ said grocery store. White Hen, 2.99 vs 5.99!
I have to figure things out all the time. A nudge here and there, problem solved!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:05 pmGee, Chase,
Only, “Wonderful”?
How about, “Sorry, I was wrong. I don’t know what the Hell I’m talking about.”?
See, again you show your age.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:07 pmI know how we can handle the coming shortfall of SS.
We can just tell all the people that voted for Bush to go F*** themselves because BUSH spent all of their money in IRAQ and squandered future funds with his TAX CUTS FOR THE TOP 1%!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:07 pmSouthwest Bob,
Thanks.
I thought you were of a more liberal persuasion…! :)
…did I spell that right?
July 31st, 2006 at 8:11 pm#86 - No thanks.
You tell me I have lack credibility because of my age and shortage of “actual life experience.”
I wouldn’t consider two associates degrees - particularly given their lack of applicability to public policy debates - as granting you credibility.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:15 pmTHEY ARE NOT ASSOCIATE DEGREES, YOU TWIT!
To be a PT in MA, it is a MASTERS degree.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:18 pmWRONG AGAIN, Idiot!
Neither was the biology (specialized in Biotech)
Everyone here knows I worked @ MIT, Chase.
On the Human Genome Project, Chase.
Again, you show your hubris and AGE!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:20 pmWell, the world needs physical therapists, don’t get me wrong.
I’m a little doubtful as to how much the education of a physical therapist is applicable to policy debates on social security, elections, etc etc.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know what you’re talking about and that you’re being intellectually honest as long as you afford me the same courtesy.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:22 pmYou, Chase, are an Idiot.
Enough said.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:24 pmWell, I extended the olive branch - remember that.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:25 pmI’ve said it before, I’ll say it again; the phasing out of social security and government medical benefits in favor of private investment accounts is nothing more than a SCAM to get interest free, risk free money for corporations that corporations could not otherwise get from banks or other lending institutions.
Other than personal greed on the part of those who have plenty already, there is NO REASON why Americans who have worked hard all of their lives and contributed to the greatness of this country, but not made it big financially, should not get to participate in and receive a fair share of the bounty of this country via social security and medical benefits.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:25 pmConsidering you are one of the biggest tools on this site, I don’t think I’ll lose any sleep; especially since you insulted me twice.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:28 pmNope. No remorse.
#71 Chase,
Sorry your getting ripped up more. I am glad to hear you are ethical and fair, don’t sell that out. My father in law is a good man, ethical, honest, fair. He devoted his entire career to Honeywell, and faithfully votes Republican. He now feels robbed and duped with his job and his politics. He was too good for his “leaders” and trusted them. I hope you question authority.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:29 pmSo, remember, if you want your Social Security benefits exploited in the hands of Wall St, be sure to vote Republican in the coming elections!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:32 pmIn 1996 the Social Security trustees predicted the Social Security trust fund would be depleted in 2029.
In 2000 the Social Security trustees predicted the Social Security trust fund would be depleted in 2037.
In 2004 the Social Security trustees predicted the Social Security trust fund would be depleted in 2042.
http://www.epinet.org/ content.cfm/ issueguide_socialsecurity
I guess that means that in 2008 the fund will be depleted in 2055! Hell, why do anything? According to the SS trustees, we can put it off forever!!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:33 pm#95 - What happens in 25 years when the number of workers per beneficiary falls to a point where the system is fiscally unreasonable?
July 31st, 2006 at 8:35 pmAs one who has paid into the Social Security program since 1945 I will guarantee that it is not, repeat is not, an entitlement program as the repugs would have you believe meaning something for nothing. If I had paid the same amount into a private account at the going rate of interest and started drawing out the interest only I would be drawing much more than the Social Security I am now drawing except the private accounts would have done just as the republicans have done and there would be nothing left. The exception is that the Republicans can steal the money but they still have to make the payments. The Social Security Program would be in fine shape if the Republicans had done as the program intended: Make the Program self-sustaining isolate the Social Security money from the General Fund and invest those funds. If funds were taken from the Social Security Funds for the General Fund they were to been paid back with interest. That was not the case. The Republicans stole the money and blamed the retired Democrats for depleting the funds by demanding their “entitlements.” If you thing for one minute that private investments will work just reread some recent history with King George the Old and the S&L Dragons. How soon we forget and how long it takes us to learn.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:36 pmChase, the problem is not your age. It’s the cocky, know-it-all attitude that comes through your posts. I think you’ve got the intelligence to take in knowledge but the lack of social and general life experience to apply that knowledge and share it with others. Further, you seem to be unwilling to accept any information inconsistent with your current view point. Maybe you should listen (or read, here) more and talk (or post) less.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:36 pmAnother line of thought. If the Government wants to privatize Social Security then treat the SSI collections as payment into a Mutual Fund and let the SS administrators invest the funds in the private market. The risk, however, would be on the part of the Government and any loss in the market would be made up from the general Fund as it is now. Obviously this would never fly because it is not about privatizing Social Security it is about privatizing LOSS due to theft, fraud, greed, mismanagement and all those things the Republicans have done to bleed the Social Security Program.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pmThis is another example of the crucial role of language in the values debate. The Republicans try to make social security seem like a “bad investment and retirement program” and it would be, if that’s what is designed to be. It is not. Social security is a safety net for our society as a whole, a guarantee of protection against a penniless retirement.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pmThis sits well for Lois Murphy, Democrat, who is running against Jim Gerlach, Republican and any other Democrat running for a position in the House. I can see the ads now… Jim Gerlach, rubber stamper, supports dismantling Social Security. What a gift from the repubs… showing their hand before the election.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:46 pmWhat happens in 25 years when the number of workers per beneficiary falls to a point where the system is fiscally unreasonable?
Comment by Chase — July 31, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
I posted a response to one of your posts, way up there in this thread. Follow the link, read the article from FactCheck. It is a concise, neat explanation on how the system is not anywhere near bankrupt and it debunks Pres Bush’s claims.
Social Security is in no risk of insolvency in 25 years.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:49 pmI love the “it’s an entitlement” routine. We as a civilized and advanced society have the obligation to care for our people and entitlement programs are the responsibility of any civilized society. It prevents large groups of people from dying slowly in the streets. But SS is not an entitlement. Workers paid into a fund and were promised a monetary return if they did so. that’s not a charity but a contract. It’s very easy for evil human beings to dismiss their responsibility (BushCo) as charity, but that doesn’t make it true or ethical. It is not permissable to allow it “to go broke”, the government made a deal with it’s citizens and MUST be held accountable. By the way, that still doesn’t even address the readily available nudges that will restore solvency by the time 2042 rolls around.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:52 pmChase,
I just went back and read some of your earlier comments. I would love to get into a little pissing contest with you about qulifications to debate the issue. Please be advised that I have a 30 Year-old Grandson who is a Federal Law Enforcement Officer and who generally agrees with me on everything except football so lets leave age out of this. Except for the time it takes to accumulate educational degrees and experience.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:53 pmI’ll be back soon….
July 31st, 2006 at 8:54 pmmust go watch Hell’s Kitchen with Mini-Blue! (She loves it, and loves watching it with her old Mom! Since she’s 16, I’ll take any time I can get with her!)
#19 - your are right about the donuthole… senior citizens and anyone else that pays taxes have gotten screwed on this plan. The Repbublicans are in denial… they will lose on in November.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:54 pm#107 Bones
This is the first time I recall reading your comments. I suspect it is my loss as you have stated my thoughts much more politely than I am inclined to do. Keep up the good work!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:58 pmPrivitization is already available - it’s called a 401K.
If the Bush&Co and the Repubs weren’t so gung ho about sending Americans off to fight a war, SS wouldn’t be in such dire straights.
Can’t trust a Republican with your tax dollar… they will exploit it to their benefit and big Corporations and your loss everytime.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:58 pm#108 - I’m advised.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:59 pmCome on people, why engage misinformation on their turf?
1. Before social security over a third of seniors were living in poverty. After social security, that rate has fallen by about 75%. The fact is, social security works and works exceptionally well.
2. Overhead/administrative costs on Social Security are pennies on the dollar at most and it is one of the most effecient systems around.
3. As pointed out already, no privatization plan has worked. Chile’s presidential candidates–conservative and liberal–both ran on getting government back into the pension system.
4. The most pessimistic projections have S.S. solvent for 40 years at COMPLETE benefit payouts. After that point, they will be able to give about 80% of the expected amount. Mr. Chris will get money back unless there is a catastrophic economic event–collapse of the dollar or equivalent.
5. Fewer actuaries are taking the pessimistic projections seriously and “moderate” and “optimistic” projections have S.S. solvent indefinitely as is. Even using pessimistic projections, a simple change such as increasing the $90,000 cap by $30-40k extends solvency a while.
6. If we don’t pay back the trust in full, then what the GOP will end up doing is to steal hundreds of billions of dollars from those of us who have paid into S.S. already. That’s grand grand grand grand grand larceny on the level of Monty Burns and the trillion dollar bill.
7. The “personal responsibility/ownership society” has been aptly termed the “YOYO economy” (You’re on your own), however I prefer the “F-you society”. The truth is, our country will never let senior poverty get to pre-S.S. levels. By going with this zany scheme, when it collapses, we are going to have to spend billions (trillions?) to fix it. It’s a stupid long term move.
Stick to the facts. Chase should demonstrate that he will not get any benefits before we start taking him seriously.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:00 pm#109 True Blue
Hell’s Kitchen doesn’t start here for an hour. Let me know if Sara gets kicked off so I can get Garndma to bet.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:01 pmYou’re frickin’ new to pubic hair, for crissake. (Zooey, that one’s for you!)
Comment by trueblue
Glad you’re toughening up, girl.
You don’t have to thank me, because I don’t want to think about Chase pubs again. ;)
July 31st, 2006 at 9:02 pmComment by Chase:
I resent the fact I have to pay in to a system that I will never recieve any benefit from.
Another selfish comment by an ignorant repub.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:02 pmChase,
Wow. Life experience. Glad I’m not the only one throwing those words in your general direction. You might want to pay attention, since it seems to be a bit of a trend. :)
July 31st, 2006 at 9:06 pmOh, and since I don’t agree with the war in Iraq, or with the money we give to Israel, so I want the portion of my tax money that goes to Iraq and Israel back!
Comment by Jebus loves me — July 31, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
Me too and not only that, I don’t want any more of MY MONEY going to support Isreal or the war in Iraq or for killing any other human, no exceptions.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:07 pmHere’s an idea for you libs…
Instead of making sure the rich support the poor through government handouts, why don’t you guys just volunteer your money? That way us conservatives are happy, you liberals are happy, and the “financially challenged” are happy. After all, liberals are the most enlightened people in the world. I would assume that the way you talk about making sure the poor are taken care of, you libs would be more than willing to spend your money to make life fair…..
July 31st, 2006 at 9:07 pmtrueblue & Clyde,
What is Hell’s Kitchen?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:08 pm#117 - How is that selfish? God forbid I would want some benefit from a system I pay into.
#118 - I think it’s more a desire to avoid actually discussing the merits of the argument and attack, ad hominem, the messenger instead. That seems to be the real trend.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:09 pmSo, then, I assume that you righties are against the add-on the Republicans have to the minimum wage bill? The estate tax cuts? I mean, those are just entitlements for the rich.
Or is it only an entitlement if it goes to the poor? You know, the ones who really NEED the assistance?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:10 pmOh Michael Sav, you child. Not the old I’ll keep mine you give yours away ploy. OK, I don’t want to pay for roads, Ted Stevens salmon babyfood earmark, the bridge to nowhere, the Iraq war, or Congressional perks. So let’s see the government owes me $30,000.00 this year. Thanks Mikey, glad you suggested it. Anyone else want money back like Mikey suggests?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:10 pmI like GQ’s post on number 114
July 31st, 2006 at 9:12 pmI am so tired of the “your on your own”, “it doesn’t benefit me” attitude of the right. I do not consider taxes a burden. Taxes are the cost of living in this great country. They are the dues I pay to make the system work for everyone. Taxes are my obligation to pay back to others what would benefit them because I have received what has benefited me. I have had the privelege of good parents, good health, a good public school, government sponsored school loans to attend government supported universities, good roads to travel to work and to fun activities, museums to visit on vacation, public safety personnel ready to protect me, and a host of other benefits which I never earned. It would be selfish and immoral not to pass on whatever benefit I can to the less fortunate, to all my neighbors, and to the next generation.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:13 pm#123 - I think a minimum-wage increase, like other bills, deserves an unencumbered up-or-down vote. I don’t like using amendments like that to provide cover for not debating the merits of both sides.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:13 pm#127 - That’s nice, Chase. But you didn’t really answer the question, now did you?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:16 pmLike I asked earlier….
Name one economy on the face of the earth which is more prosperous than the United States…
July 31st, 2006 at 9:16 pmMicheal Savage,
C’Mon man, the system is payed into, its not free to people who collect it. And you know its not politically correct for people to be sick and dying in the USA, not being taken care of, that looks bad.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:16 pmWell Chase since there has been no minimum wage increase in years and the price of gas has gone up 200%, without an increase you’re making more poor people for Mike Sav to have to support.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:18 pm#125
Yep, and the government owes me for welfare contributions, social security contributions, funding abortions through planned parenthood, diversity traininig amonst governtment employees, and the other 90% of government waste.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:19 pmsmass - I don’t consider repealing the estate tax “an entitlement”. All it does is allow earned wealth to be passed on, rather than appropriated by the government. I’m generally opposed to taxing all inheritance - but I find it obscene to tax it at a 49% rate.
Does that answer your question?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:21 pmBottom line, it looks like crap for your country’s poor people to be suffering and not have basic care. At the 1986 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games, the bums were given nice clothes, or removed.
Even if the Social Security System goes belly up from privatization, all politicians don’t want to “look bad”, so out of their own selfishness, the poor will end up having basic needs met. Even if the cost is Trillions to “fix” it. Then we can all bitch about what didn’t work.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:21 pm#131
Well, you obviously don’t understand social security, so please refrain from posting on the subject.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:21 pmAnd Michael Savage 4 Prez:
July 31st, 2006 at 9:22 pmI do donate my time, talent, and money to help others because there is a more personal touch to it. But taxes, as pooled money, have greater buying power and reach. Social Security has been one of the most successful government programs and that infuriates the right wing who seem to think that government can and should only control who you marry, how you express yourself as an American, what you should be able to see or hear on entertainment programs, and what country to threaten into submission.
Name one economy on the face of the earth which is more prosperous than the United States…
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
So living in the US is a privilege. Those who can afford it, should pay for that privilege.
Those who are too poor to pay or leave, must get help (no, not “handouts” or “entitlements”) to become contributing members of society and pay back the opportunity they were granted.
And they lived happily ever after ;-)
July 31st, 2006 at 9:22 pm==============================
The Social Security Fund is in better shape than you and the GOP make it out to be. The only problem I see with the Social Security Fund is that Bush keeps on borrowing (stealing) from it to mask the failures of his economic policies. In fact, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all borrowed excessively from the fund to mask their economic failures. Democrats wanted a lock box; republicans wanted tax cuts for the rich. Raise the taxes of the rich and put back all the money Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 borrowed (stole) from it.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:22 pmMicheal Savage,
What are you gonna do to get your money back?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:23 pmAnd to the clowns who say the estate tax is an entitlement to the rich, how is it an entitlement when it is their money to begin with?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:23 pmBecause the topic has moved (momentarily) to the minimum wage, this BLS document should be a good starting place for a discussion.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:24 pm#137
Just answer the question…..All I am asking for is one country.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:25 pmThat seems to be the real trend.
Comment by Chase
No, actually I think it really is the life experience.
I think you might be feeling a bit picked on right now, Chase. You’re going to learn SO much in law school, and even more once you get to the prosecuting attorney’s office. Then, sometimes, you’ll look around this world, and realize you don’t know a damn thing. Everybody does…
July 31st, 2006 at 9:25 pmhow is it an entitlement when it is their money to begin with?
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
It is not their money. It is money they inherited, and the estate tax is meant to tax inheritance above $2million. Those people didn’t earn that money, or rather, they earned by virtue of being born to the right parents.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:26 pmChase - I find it odd that you’re so appalled by it. I mean, do you realize just how many estates have to even PAY the estate tax? About 0.27%. Or, about 1000, nationwide. (That’s with the 2mil exemption, I believe).
And, do you know just how many family farms have been forclosed on? That’s right. 0. Not a single one has been taken away because of the estate tax.
What it really comes down to is this: A person could win the lottery and win $35 million. Paris Hilton could inherit $350 million (or more). If the Republicans have their way, Paris would pay nothing. Now THAT is what I find offensive.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:26 pmSee Mikey you did’t get the sarcasm in the post, let’s lay it out. If everyone didn’t pay for everything they didn’t like about the government there would be NO COUNTRY and you wouldn’t have a house, or money, or water, or food. You’d be Iraq, and dead. See sarcasm and it was directed at your ridiculous and illogical post #120. Get it or do you need it explained again.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:26 pmAnd I’m sorry to all for moving the conversation away from Social Security
July 31st, 2006 at 9:27 pm#145 - According to the IRS, it only affects the wealthiest 2%. I’m against it for ideological reasons. The wealth was taxed when it was earned. Why tax it again?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:28 pm========================
The estate tax was put into place to keep America from shifting into a plutocracy.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:29 pmSo Micheal,
What do you do with the poor people? You do know they exist, right? Do you let them rot in the streets, tell them to leave the country, institionalize them, kill them, what? Do you just ingnore it? I mean how would you address the population of the poor in this country?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:29 pm#145
So you inherit money….it’s not yours?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:30 pmThe wealth was taxed when it was earned. Why tax it again?
Comment by Chase — July 31, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
This statement is absolutely false:
One of the most enduring myths about the estate tax is that it constitutes “double taxation†— that is, it taxes income that already was taxed under the income tax during the decedent’s lifetime. This claim is seriously distorted
July 31st, 2006 at 9:31 pmWHY THE ESTATE TAX IS NOT “DOUBLE TAXATION”
Again, going back to Paris Hilton (since that’s the kind of people that are truely affected by estate tax), what did she do to earn the money again? Nothing. She lived a few years longer than daddy. It wasn’t her money to begin with. She just has a huge windfall.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:31 pmActually Mike, inherited money is NOT yours, it belonged to someone else that what inherit means. You can’t inherit somethin g that belongs to yourself. And like any money you receive it’s taxed.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:32 pmSo you inherit money….it’s not yours?
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
Sure it is, after you pay your taxes.
Just like winning the lottery -taxes are due.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:32 pmIf you are poor, you need to put yourself in a position to fend for yourself. You learn how to save. You educate yourself. You do whatever it takes to survive without relying on other people. Why is that such a difficult thing to understand?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:32 pmChases point is initially convincing about the estate tax, but then, you apply the same concrete, hard logic, and technically the hiers(little brats), it ain’t their money.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:33 pmSo if you get a gift, is that not yours either since someone else worked for the money that purchased the present?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:34 pm#149 - Totally understand that. I just am ideologically opposed to high rates of taxation. I’m particularly offended by double taxation.
However, I’m willing to submit to the majority will on this. If the majority wants to maintain the estate tax, I can go along with it and keep arguing against it. Democracy is so quaint that way, isn’t it?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:34 pm#156 - You make the assumption that everyone has the same opportunities to succeed. Maybe if you left your ideal world (where minorities don’t exist), you’d know that that just isn’t the case.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:35 pmChase - How about a compromise, then? Taxed at the rate of regular income?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:37 pm156,
Michael,
Its not difficult for me to understand, but its too difficult for many to understand. You cant make people do something they cannot do. We saw this with the de-institutionalization of very sick mental patients in the 80’s, across the country. I know there are considerable people who “milk” the system. If you know of a way to better weed those people out, let the government know about it, they try very hard to prevent abuse.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:37 pm#152 - Very interesting, thanks. I’m going to investigate that point further.
#153 - But why does the state have more of a claim to his money than he does? Why shouldn’t he have a say in where it goes when he expires?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:37 pm158, Micheal Mr. Gift,
You can recieve a “gift” of up to 10,000 dollars, after that, its taxed. Next….
July 31st, 2006 at 9:39 pm#164 - Plus there is a $1mil lifetime gifting exemption
July 31st, 2006 at 9:39 pm#163
Yes, there will always be a part of society which will need help. Whether they be mentally challenged, disabled, etc. However, government handouts should be the exception, not the rule.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:40 pm#161 - I’m completely OK with that.
If my Mr. Hilton has an estate of $10 million (making numbers up for simplicity) and passes on $5 million to Paris and $5 million to Nicky, when it’s tax time, they should have to each pay the income tax on $5 million.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:40 pmMikey there are @40 MILLION Americans living below the poverty line (@19,500/year). I find it hard to believe your theory that we have 40 MILLION lazy, slothful, ner-do-wells. The actual fact is if you don’t give people the oppurtunity to suceed they never will.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:40 pmChase - And who says that people on the left and the right can’t get along? :)
July 31st, 2006 at 9:41 pmAnd again Mike you’re only half right. We should be insisting people work and do what they can, but then we as a society have to care for the rest. It’s the responsible, ethical, and moral thing to do.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:42 pmI wasn’t asking the how IRS tax laws worked. I just wondered in your theory of economic policy if that was fair. Obviously it is.
And I am so sick and tired of people crying about being oppressed because they are a minority. I am a black man who had nothing growing up, educated myself through student loans, and got where I am today through hard work.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:43 pm166, Micheal,
Again, making the handouts the exception and not the rule is what the government wrestles with every day, if you know a better way to only serve the people who truly need it, let them know. Just because the system does not work to the standards you want it to is not a reason the remove the help from the people who need it.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:43 pm#171- now Mike reach out and help someone and make sure they don’t have to suffer as much as you did. I’m sure almost everyone’s parents wanted their kids to do better than they did. We are a community of Americans, once your family is cared for everyone has the moral obligation to help another American. If not what the hell is the point of having a country, let’s just make it a free-for-all.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:46 pm=========================
It’s not double taxation. The income Paris Hilton’s father makes, is being taxed and the income Paris Hilton receives (her inheritance) will be taxed. Two separate people’s incomes will be taxed.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:46 pm#173
Okay, why don’t I just do this…
Quit my job tomorrow, claim disability due to the fact that I have anexity issues, and live off the government dole for the next 50+ years. What would happen if 100 million of us did that tomorrow?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:46 pmAmerica: home of the predator and the prey, and people wonder why there are so many murders,violent crimes,people in prison, disgraceful slums, uninsured, poor etc.
American prosperity off of the backs of the American Indian, the African slave, child labor, the abused low payed worker, the immigrant, etc. something to be proud of.
Now do I trust the fascist right’s buddies in the financial industry with my SS money?No F’ing way, most can’t even keep an honest set of books or give their investors honest information . Scum.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:47 pmAnd I am still waiting for someone to tell me one country who’s economy is stronger than the CAPITALIST United States.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:48 pmMany people do and many people have such overwhelming psychiatric problems they can’t be employed. Yes we should try to seperate and get treatment for those who can be helped, but we can’t let those that can’t work just die in the streets.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:49 pm#177
The fascist right? Oh, you mean the islamofacists, right???
July 31st, 2006 at 9:50 pmha ha ha. I was sure that this thread will be really appealing for Chase and Jason.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:51 pmJason thinks union deserve to be destroy. Of course he prefers to work 12 to 15 hours a day as it was before Parson and the other Chicago´s martyrs.
Chase would like to make a better world by putting in jail all lazy, black and latino bums, while good, decent, white people can walk without worries in the night.
Mr. Michael,
You would have to be a full blown sociopath to convince the variety of doctors and psychiatrists that you are eligible for social security disability due to anxiety. Plus there is another team of people at the SS office in which determines eligibility. Its pretty rigorous, and as an uwritten rule, alomost everyone is automatically turned down initially. Beleive it or not, there are that many disabled people out there, thats why we look at issues like chemicals in the environment, food quality, water quality, stress on workers, and the general well being of a xociety.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:51 pmLet me pose another question since no one in here can give me an answer regarding my first…
Hugo Chavez is allegedly this great humanitarian who takes care of his people. So why don’t I see a long line waiting to get into Venezuela?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:52 pmAnd I am still waiting for someone to tell me one country who’s economy is stronger than the CAPITALIST United States.
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
Luxemburgo and Switzerland, the richest countries in the world.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:52 pmYour americanism is embarrasing you.
176,
That is a good one too, I concur.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:53 pmOkay Juan C,
Define a prosperous nation in economic terms.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:53 pm#183 Luxemburg and Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.