WP: A Big Push On Social Security

[kskiska]

Private Accounts Are Bush Priority

Saturday, January 1, 2005; Page A01

President Bush's political allies are raising millions of dollars for an election-style campaign to promote private Social Security accounts, as Democrats and Republicans prepare for what they predict will be the most expensive and extensive public policy debate since the 1993 fight over the Clinton administration's failed health care plan.

With Bush planning to unveil the details of his Social Security plan this month, several GOP groups close to the White House are asking the same donors who helped reelect Bush to fund an extensive campaign to convince Americans -- and skeptical lawmakers -- that Social Security is in crisis and that private accounts are the only cure.

Progress for America, an independent conservative group that backed Bush in the campaign, has set aside about $9 million to support the president's Social Security plan as well as other White House domestic priorities in the new year, said spokesman Brian McCabe. The group is asking its donors for much more, he said.

(snip)

But their contributions are likely to be dwarfed by those from corporate trade associations, spearheaded by the National Association of Manufacturers. Other likely contributors include the financial services and securities industries and other Fortune 500 companies, GOP officials say. White House officials, led by Karl Rove and Charles P. Blahous III, the president's policy point man on Social Security, are helping to shape the public relations campaign, said the officials, who talked about private discussions with the White House on the condition of anonymity.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39791-2004Dec31.html

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

1. We need to fight this

The AARP is spening $5 million, but that will be dwarfed by these Republican efforts. We can't depend on others to win this b attle for us. We need to join the fight. We need to start cutting iMac internet ad-spots and distributing them everywhere we can.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. I'd heard it was $35 million on WTOP radio in DC yesterday

but I can't verify that and really am not certain. But even if it is, it will be dwarfed by Chimpus Khan's big buck buddies.

[recidivist]

7. No, we need to get on the right side of the issue.

Private investment options in Social Security are going to happen, and should. They're a good thing, not a bad thing, and they are overwhelmingly supported by the two demographic groups that matter on this issue: (1) people who already have IRA's or 401(k)'s or participate in the federal Thrift Savings Plan or its state and local government equivalents, and therefore understand what the system would look like, and (2) people under the age of 45, who have the time to make an investment based system work for them. (These people also represent the future, so they need to be taken seriously.)

The politics of this issue have shifted. Last ditch opponents of investment accounts are going to find that out the hard way. Trying to scare old folks by lying to them about what reform would entail is not going to win many elections anymore.

The Democratic Party needs to help lead this reform, not be the reactionary, know-nothing opponent. Social Security will hit the wall in less than 15 years. Prattling about the "trust fund" is a brain dead evasion, since the Social Security Trust Fund is nothing but off budget debt. Starting about 2018, Social Security taxes will be insufficient to pay promised benefits. At that point, we either have to borrow (this is what "spending the trust fund" means), cut benefits, or raise taxes.

Let's fix Social Security now. Any Democratic politician who wants to be nationally viable 20 years from now had better be on the reform side of the question now.

[creeksneakers2]

12. It doesn't make sense to me

Even if I agreed with your method of counting 2018, I'm still stuck wondering why you want to fix a problem 13 years down the road when we have half trillion dollar deficits now. If we were worried about the taxes people pay in 2018 we'd stop dropping all this debt on them.


Private accounts won't do a thing to help the solvency of the system.

[snippy]

13. Improving Social Security should be a democratic issue.

But whether Bush's plan improves it is an open question. As long as the details of the plan are kept secret no one can make an intelligent decision about whether Bush's plan is good or bad. Any one who claims otherwise is either making unwarranted assumptions or lying.

However, I am confident that Bush, being Bush, has lied repeatedly about his utopian plans for Social Security. When his supporters learn the details many of them are likely to be less enthusiastic than they are now. Democrats need to wait for Bush to come forth with the details of his secret plan before they criticize it. Whenever the subject of Social Security reform comes up they need to press Bush to come out with the details. They should say that it is impossible for any reasonably intelligent person to agree or disagree with a secret plan.

What the democrats need to do now is prepare the questions to ask Bush when he finally does reveal his plan. With regard to preparing those questions, democrats should be doing a little research to find out what the expectations of the supporters of Bush's plan are. If those expectations are not met, Bush will lose a lot of support for his plan.

Among those questions are:

Will benefits be reduced for people who choose not to participate in the private accounts?

How much are benefits going to be reduced for each age group participating in the private accounts?

How will survivor benefits be affected, especially for participants in the private account system who then die shortly after electing to participate?

Will the decision to participate in the private account system be irrevocable?

What investments will the government allow individuals to make in the private accounts?

What other decisions, such as asset allocation and rebalancing, will the government allow individuals to make and how often?

Will the government allow people to make additional contributions to an account above the maximum amount contributed from their Social Security taxes?

What will be the administrative costs of the private account system and who will pay such costs?

What limits, if any, will the government place on future increases in the administrative costs?

What remedies will the government allow to private account participants for misfeasance and malfeasance by the managers of the accounts?

What safety net will exist for participants in the private accounts who have catastrophic losses in their accounts after or near retirement age?

What amount of the private plan balance of a retiree will be included in Medicaid eligibilty calculations for long term care?

For now I think it is better to say that the plan can not be intelligently evaluated since it is still secret and to let the optimistic expectations of Bush's supporters build to unreasonable levels. Democrats also need to develop their own plan for improving Social Security and for educating the public on the issue. Part of that education needs to be explaining the difference between a minimum social safety net and a retirement plan. Social Security is the former, not the latter.

[mutius]

14. bush

everything he did before and after he was fraud ed into office has been a disaster. every business he owned, bankrupt, Texas bankrupt, the country is now on the verge of bankruptcy, and now this, to give big business are hard earned money. they stole the nations Surplus 7 trillion dollars and now this. Clinton quote, asked bush what are you going to do with the surplus? bush said, "I'm going to lock it up and throw away the key." part of that 7 trillion was for S/S. right side of what? insanity. invest are money with no control. remember when the market fell, what happens then. when Clinton left office social security was doing just fine. no problems enough monies until 2075 and it was growing. bush the ass came into office and has ruined the country economically, and is stealing the S/S money.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

15. Privatization is not the answer….

This red flag should be easily recognized by any sensible democrat that nothing this administration has ever recommended has been of any real benefit to working class Americans. The easy solution may be to eliminate the income ceiling for paying tax which would make the system entirely secure into the foreseeable future and may result in a reduced tax rate for all participants. This would also provide an opportunity for the most wealthiest segment that benefited the most from the tax cuts to give something back to support the budget that the their tax cut windfall bankrupted. Let’s get real if privatization was so good for most Americans why is it being held a secret and why are all the usual suspects of destroying the future for working class Americans spending their money to promote it. This is the opening salvo in dismantling Social Security and then Medicare sponsored by the deadly effective repuke spin machine. If you are inane enough to fall for this shakedown you might want to reconsider your party affiliation if you are a democrat.

[stevebreeze]

18. in 2017 SS will have $3.8 trillion in assets enough income form taxes and

income from assets to pay every last dime for another decade, and by drawing down the assets it can pay every dime until AT LEAST 2042, 2052 according to the CBO. After 2042 there is still enough funding to pay retirees more in inflation adjusted dollars then they receive today. SS is NOT BROKE.

On private accounts; there is no zero chance that private accounts will pay bigger benefits to retires in the future then the current system. The "stock markets return 7% above inflation" line you have heard time and again is a lie. The reason is the 7% is based on past performance of annual GDP growth of 3-4%. The SS trustee estimate GDP growth at 1.8%. If we only grow at 1.8% stocks can not grow by 7%. The economy can not grow faster then it's parts.When you figure in the enormous transition costs($2 trillion) and the 15% EXTRA that it will take to administer private accounts There is no chance whatsoever that a new system of forced saving will be better then the current pay as you go system which has lifted million of elderly and disabled out of poverty.

[papau]

38. very true :-)

:-)

[Zynx]

49. Even while I oppose private accounts, THERE IS NO TRUST FUND.

The "trust fund" has no assets. Its "assets" come in the form of bonds that have been issued to cover the deficit spending of the government for the past thirty+ years. Technically, the trust fund exists in the sense that the huge pile of IOUs that the government has built up are supposed to be financed by general government revenues, but because of Bush, it won't be.

However, their estimates of doom are still too severe because they underestimate both inflation and economic growth for the next thirty years, meaning that nominal economical growth will be significant enough to push the "doom date" for SS back for many many years.

[stevebreeze]

52. the trust fund is comprised of US treasure notes.

Long considered the safest investment on the face of the planet. Should we decide NOT to pay them back to SS in full what message is that telling our other creditors? can you imagine the depths the dollar would sink to if that happened? The fact is the middle class and the poor have been overpaying their share of SS since '83, yes it has been used up, mostly to give tax cuts to the wealthiest. That doesn't mean making the trustfund the fiction you say it is doesn't have more sever consequences then acting as if we are just repaying other US debts.

[Zynx]

53. Those bonds aren't owned by anyone. That is the U.S.'s "internal debt"

[stevebreeze]

60. not true it is owned by all of us

have you read Krugmans newest article?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010305F.shtml
it in part disuses the trust fund better then I can explain.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[antigop]

23. Federal employees have a Thrift Savings Plan -- a 401(k)

The Thrift Savings Plan is the government's version of a 401(k). It is a DEFINED CONTRIBUTION plan, NOT a DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN. It is being touted as the model for private investment accounts.

How has it worked?

Funny you should ask. The Wall Street Journal did a piece on this on December 22, 2004 (page C1 front page of the Money & Investing section). The title of the article is "Model Reveals Social Insecurity". The title should tell you something.

Quote:
"The much-touted federal Thrift Savings Plan doesn't protect participants from losses in financial markets."

Excerpt:
------------
"Data from the TSP show that, while the vast majority of participants leave their investments alone, those who made changes in recent years rushed to buy stocks at the height of the bull market. Then, after stock prices collapsed, participants moved out of their stock funds and into bonds, potentially locking in their losses. In addition, as stock prices moved lower during the bear market, many participants reduced their monthly contributions to the TSP's stock-fund options. Financial advisers generally say investors should stick with an appropriate investment strategy and not overreact to the market's ups and downs.
----------

It even contains a quote from Wiliam Shipman, co-chair of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security and a backer of private accounts. He is quoted as saying "Safe is not an adjective I would use to" describe the TSP investment options.


Social Security is currently a DEFINED BENEFIT plan -- a worker's benefit is spelled out in a formula based on work history. The TSP is a 401(k)type of plan -- a worker's benefit will depend upon how well (or how poorly) he/she invests.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[antigop]

34. TSP ONLY has index funds for stocks -- they didn't speculate on equities

From the article:

Of its five investment options, four are index funds managed by Barclays Gloval Investors...The TSP was launched with just three options: a portfolio based on the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, an option tracking a Lehman brothers bond-market index and a fund in which participants' money is invested directly in short-term U.S. government securities. In May 2001, the TSP added a fund that tracks an index of small-company stocks and an international-stock index fund."
...
William Shipman, co-chair of Cato Institute's Project on Social Security and a backer of private accounts who advocates an initial limit on workers' exposure to stocks. Just because an investment option is an index fund "does not get around the risk" of the underlying investments.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[papau]

39. Well said! :-)

:-)

[Ed C. Finley]

22. I agree

My wife and I are in our late 40s and dont expect much from social security. One possible compromise might be let us invest 1/4 of the 15% deducted (7.5% personal, 7.5% employer witheld) in return we would only only be eligible for 1/2 our social security benefit.

The system would be ahead by 25% when we retired and a lot of baby boomers would take this deal I think. My boomer friends I have broached this idea to seem to think it would work.

Just my .02 (plus 3% cola)

[bpilgrim]

25. do you have ANY REAL data to back up your INTUITION? n/t

peace

[antigop]

27. Good grief!

Maybe you don't expect much from Social Security because you haven't read or understood the Trustee Report.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

There is NO crisis in Social Security.
There is NO crisis in Social Security.
There is NO crisis in Social Security.
There is NO crisis in Social Security.
There is NO crisis in Social Security.
There is NO crisis in Social Security.

[papau]

41. That is not a compromise - you are asking that we borrow to give you money

And then we pay taxes needed to cover the interest on that money in the hope your investments go well -

since if they don't go well the "savings" gained from your forgoing 1/2 of the current Social Security promise will be eaten up by the extra welfare payments we will need to pay to keep you alive given the lousy result in your private account.

[stevebreeze]

46. There is no chance that private accounts will "be ahead by 25%"

The often repeated assumption that stocks can grow by 7% is based on the past performance of the US economy, 3-4% GDP growth. The assumption that SS is going to fail is based on an extremely pessimistic GDP growth of 1.8%. If the economy does that poorly, stocks cannot return 7% without Price/Earnings ratio exceeding it's past all time high (35%at the hight of the bubble) by a factor of three or reaching about price being 100 times earnings. Better explained at this site- http://www.cepr.net/Social_Security/cepr_renews_challenge.htm

[Ed C. Finley]

55. You misunderstand...

Instead of collecting 100% of the social security due me when I retire I would only collect 50%. I would contribute 75% what I do now. I would invest 25 % on my own. That means the govt gets to keep the 25 % difference. If enough people took part in this plan social security would be solvent forever. (or close enough to forever anyway.)

Look , thanks for your "concern" for my well being and I realise that 99% of americans are too stupid to handle their financial affairs, but just consider me in the smart 1%;)

[girl gone mad]

56. not to mention the potential effect of...

2% or more of every paycheck going into the stock market every week.

All but the riskiest segments of the market might begin to trade like the bluest of the blue chips. We would be lucky to keep getting 10% overall returns.

[bpilgrim]

24. being on the reTHUGs side is NOT 'the right side of the issue'... hello

SS is NOT BROKE though giving our INSURANCE $$$ to wall street will certainly BREAK IT, bet

peace

[Samantha]

35. Social Security needs to be tweaked not "fixed"

It was intended to be an insurance policy against poverty, not an investment program. That's the bottom line.

I have a 401k, investments, etc. I will fight against this, and the concepts Bush* et al are selling. This is a fraud in progress.

[papau]

37. Nonsense - Rove always has folks claiming the battle is won so join the

winning side.

Anyone who got past 2nd grade can do the math that shows the private accounts destroying both Social Security and the finances of our government and our future economic growth.

There is no free lunch.

Borrow 2 trillion now and the tax increase to just pay the interest more than offsets any growth in the private account provided wealth.

Or do you think the rich will volunteer to pay that interest? Or do you think we need not pay it as the geometric growth in the deficit that results is not a problem? Or do you think that the GOP plan for taxes is not to decrease the tax of the rich (that part of the "investing class" that has 90% of the investments) by decreasing taxes on investment returns?

The math does not work - no one is better off - we just get the rich with a lesser tax obligation to a smaller safety net for the non-rich.

Bush even now says that private accounts do nothing to improve the finances of the country or to improve the finances of the Social Security system.

Indeed his Social Security benefit cuts now - instead of benefit cuts that may, or may not - be needed in 2043 - is the money saver. Bush himself is now saying the private accounts are added in as "just part of a package of ideas" - WHAT BULL SHIT - He can't sell massive benefit cuts now with the Social Security System putting out massive surpluses for the next 10 years.

But Bush wants even larger Social Security surpluses so that he can do more tax cuts for the rich.

And you want us to be on the "right side of the issue"? - I suggest that to oppose is to be on the right side of the issue.

[PA Democrat]

45. Yes, privatization worked beautifully in Argentina! NOT!

The Role of Social Security Privatization in Argentina's Economic Crisis

http://www.cepr.net/argentina_and_ss_privatization.htm

[74dodgedart]

50. Borrowing trillions of dollars to "fix" the problem is not practical

The mem should be this: regardless of what you think about the viability of SS and regardless of what your thoughts are about privatization, it is not feasible to borrow trillions of dollars (on top of what the Repubs borowed over the past 4 years and are projected to borrow over the next four years)...

Practical solutions need to be offered that can extend the life of SS without borrowing a lot of money..

The best thing Dubya can do to save SS is balance the budget.

[girl gone mad]

54. In this case, the cure is far worse than the disease.

You would be wise to take a look at Chile's privatized system, the system American conservatives are hoping to copy. Chilean brokers collect fees of between 15 and 20 percent, compared to the 1 percent administrative costs Americans pay for their SS. In order to pay for the transition to a fully privatized system, Chile had to drastically cut public spending, raise taxes, lower benefits, sell government assets, and issue bonds. They are still in debt, as is Sweden. Both countries have no hope of coming out of debt any time soon, and Chile will probably need to start paying out public funds to retirees in the near future to help cover the cost of living because the majority of retirees must work at least part time in order to make ends meet.

The other big danger I see in privatizing SS is the loss of volatility in the stock market. For the wealthy, a more stable stock market will be a good thing, since preservation of capital is their main investment goal. However, most middle class investors count on 10% annual returns to build savings for their children's college tuition and to fund the bulk of their retirement. As the stock markets start to trade more like the bond markets, far fewer people will be able to earn enough wealth to pay for college, retirement or other investment-dependent expenses.

[jdj]

57. NO, NO, NO. Social security is not broken.

1% overhead. You are full of shit, why don't you go play somewhere else?

The plan won't be in trouble for over three decades, at which point it can be fixed if your republican buddies stop running such obscene deficits.

You make me sick.

[lovuian]

2. They used the same tactics with the Prescription card

and People won't believe them no matter how much they put on TV!!!

It just proves to Me Bush is out to destroy Social Security even if it puts America in financial disaster!!!

[MisterP]

3. ironically, there was a pop-up from Club 4 Growth "tell Congress how boffo

NAFTA is: definitely not a giant sucking sound, the statistics are all lying as are the skyrocketing Nike shoe prices"

[Florida_Geek]

4. But we have an Ace in our hand now

In 78 Bush said that SS would be bankrupt in 10 if it was not made private.

Bush Wrong in 78 Bush Wrong Now.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

5. Either fight NOW or listen to the death rattle of the Democratic Party.

This is the last chance for the Democratic Party as a viable national voice and if its leadership does not act dynamically and forthwith to combat the repuke spin machine that opportunity will be lost forever. I really do not believe the party leadership appreciates the devastating consequence of this moment they are so use to rolling over and being flattened by the repuke steamroller. Wall Street and a united repuke funding effort are pumping big bucks into this “business” strategy and the only thing I hear from the Democratic Party is the sound of silence. If the “fix is in”, then the Democratic Party is DOA in 2006 and beyond. It is the time for battle so stand-up and be counted or the party can run up the white flag for the LAST TIME (the only thing the Democratic Party has become proficient at doing lately).

[Stinky The Clown]

8. I agree with your sentiments, but have to ask a one word question:

How?

The Dems have NO power left. Nada. Except the fillibuster and thet's under attack too.

Do we go ask Zell for some spitballs? While I'm not open to any compromise as far as our core values are concerned, but it seems to me (at 7.15 in the morning and only halfway through a first cup of coffee) that we have to look for some moderate republican help.

But reaching across for some help will not be free. What do we give up? Judicial nominations? The new AG? What?

We're in very deep dog shit.

[stevebreeze]

19. We still have the power of truth

Bush's plan, as best we can discern, from what little details he has shared with the public show a bad system. We can definitively show that SS is in little danger and the pirateization plans will not work to make us better off. You just can't argue with the underlying math.

[SharonAnn]

28. Run an advertizing campaign on TV and in print!

You know, one like Move-On.org did last spring about Bush and the economy.

Create the ads and buy the time for them. We have to MARKET our position on saving Social Security. For hevens sake, have we learned nothing?

How can we not do this??????

If we overwhelm the public with the right information, the true information, they will inundate Congress with their objections to screwing around with Social Security.

For Pete's sake, and ours, why is nothing being done?

[jdj]

58. Giving me and effing break... They won't run our ads.

try again.

[recidivist]

9. Just the reverse.

Having the money in the bank is a good thing. Kiting bad checks to our grandchildren is a bad thing.

A fully funded, investment based Social Security system is a good thing. Creating inheritable estates for lower and middle income families is a good thing. Giving people greater flexibility about when to retire and/or combining retirement with part time work is a good thing. Paying higher pensions is a good thing. Avoiding very heavy future tax increases and sharp future benefit cuts are good things.

Yes, there will be a long transition period. The full benefits of an investment based system will not be realized for those of us over 40. But reform will be great for our children and grandchildren, and we need to get started.

If private accounts are created for Social Security, 90% of the folks under 45 will participate within five years, maybe sooner. The people are going to vote with their feet. Do you really want the Democratic Party to get trampled in the stampede?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

11. Money in the bank with removal of earnings ceiling....

Social Security is a program that benefits our ENTIRE society with many features not economically available in private sector investments such as survivors and disability guarantees. It has been proven over generations to provide a GUARTANTEED level of income and dignity for ALL of our retired citizens. I have contributed knowing that the money I was paying in was being used to provide for my grandparents then my parents and that helped to make their lives secure. It is a cross-generation covenant to provide for a future of basic fiscal security for everyone in our society. Eliminate the earnings ceiling and it will be on a totally sound financial footing for perpetuity and provide an opportunity for the CEO’s and wealthiest to give something back to the society that has enriched them so much. Privatization is good for the more affluent sector of the public but is not good for our country as a whole especially the largest growing segment of the American working class who are living paycheck to paycheck and the working poor. This is another repuke wedge issue and I can see greed and the repuke spin machine driving it into the heart of working class Americans if it is not debunked vigorously.

[papau]

43. very true :-)

:-)

[yankeedem]

16. FACTS on Social Security reform

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503

Did you know that 37% of people collecting Social Security aren't retired?

Social SECURITY is not an investment account. Please don't be duped into supporting this.

[thecrow]

17. Creating inheritable estates for lower and middle income families

How will they do that when most people out here in reality are living paycheck to paycheck??
Save what?
Inheritable WHAT?

[papau]

44. and estate creation is more easily done via life insurance

Just increase the current tiny $255 term insurance death benefit that SS usually pays.

[bpilgrim]

29. SS INSURANCE pays out MORE that dow jones

One man's retirement math: Social Security wins

For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration?

He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system (including the matching amount from his employer), tracked down the return the Social Security Trust Fund earned for each of the 45 years, and then compared the result with what he would have gotten had he been able to invest the same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends).

To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out: $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873.

more...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[mitchtv]

don't you mean 90% of yuppies?

I don't think many of the people who are not professionals will opt to invest in more Enron type schemes. and believe me they will proliferate like mushrooms on a San Francisco lawn. Those who work with their hands, and backs will be robbed blind by fat republican theives.

[papau]

42. What nonsense - each objective is better met without private accounts

"Having the money in the bank is a good thing. Kiting bad checks to our grandchildren is a bad thing."

AS IF A 2 TRILLION BORROWING DOES NOT MEAN KITING BAD CHECKS TO THE KIDS. AS IF TAKING LOAN SHARK LOAN OUT AND THEN PUTTING IT IN THE BANK MAKES YOU BETTER OFF. AS IF THE EXTRA TAXES PAID TO COVER THE INTEREST ON THE NEW 2 TRILLION LOAN DOES NOT KILL ANY "RETURN" YOU THOUGH YOU WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP.

A fully funded, investment based Social Security system is a good thing.

AT LEAST THIS IS A GOOD IDEA - BUT THE GOP WILL NOT ALLOW A FUNDED DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN - JUST LIKE THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW IT IN THE 1940'S - SEE MEYER'S "SOCIAL SECURITY" FOR THE HISTORY OF THE REJECTION OF A FUNDED SOCIAL SECURITY. GOD FORBID WE HAVE "SOCIALISM BY THE BACK DOOR"

Creating inheritable estates for lower and middle income families is a good thing.

ANOTHER GOOD IDEA - AND EASILY ACHIEVED AT PENNIES ON THE BUSH DOLLAR BY SIMPLY INCREASING THE ORIGINAL (AND CURRENT) $255 DEATH BENEFIT TO SOMETHING LIKE $50,000 - BUT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY WOULD NOT LIKE THAT.

Giving people greater flexibility about when to retire and/or combining retirement with part time work is a good thing.

TRUE - AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH WEALTH - NOT PRIVATE ACCOUNTS - UNLESS THERE IS SOME GUARANTEE - A PROMISE TO OUR GREED GENE - THAT PRIVATE ACCOUNTS VIA BORROWING WILL MAKE US ALL RICHER!

Paying higher pensions is a good thing.

TRUE - BUT THE BUSH PROJECTIONS - MEANING THE ONLY GOP BILL FILED TO DATE'S PROJECTIONS - SHOW PRIVATE ACCOUNTS PLUS REMAINING SOCIAL SECURITY PROVIDING LESS BENEFITS DAY ONE OF NEW LAW - OF COURSE WITH CURRENT AND NEAR RETIREES GETTING THE SAME BENEFITS, THAT IS ONLY A SCREWING OF THE UNDER 55 CROWD.

Avoiding very heavy future tax increases and sharp future benefit cuts are good things.

WE AVOID FUTURE TAX INCREASES BY BORROWING NOW? HOW DOES THAT WORK?

if private accounts are created for Social Security, 90% of the folks under 45 will participate within five years, maybe sooner. The people are going to vote with their feet. Do you really want the Democratic Party to get trampled in the stampede?

GET REAL - FOLKS WILL PARTICIPATE IF THE MEDIA LIES TO THEM AND SELLS THIS LOAD OF CRAP. INDEED THE BUSH FOLKS ARE DESIGNING THE SYSTEM SO THAT YOU REALLY REALLY GET SCREWED IF YOU OP OUT OF PRIVATE ACCOUNTS. WE MAY GET HIT BY A STAMPEDE - BUT I THOUGHT BEING A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEANT HAVING CORE VALUES. IT WAS NOT JUST THE GOP GAME OF SUCKING UP TO THE RICH AND HOPING TO GET SOME OF THE SCRAPES THAT MAY FALL FROM THE TABLES OF THE RICH.

[jdj]

59. what if the stock market tanks? what then?

The reason that repukes are scared of this is because they are afraid their constituents are too suspicious of it and it could cost them re-elections. And if they are scared then we should be marching in the streets.

Where I am from we say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I don't know if you know this or not, since your posts are overflowing with repuke spin, but social security is not broken.

And one doesn't have to know the ins and outs of it, all one really has to do is study past repuke behavior.

One thing we all know for sure is that if this were an economically feasible policy that would benefit the majority of our society's most vulnerable citizens, then the republicans WOULDN'T TOUCH IT WITH A TEN FOOT POLE. The only thing we can be sure of about social security reform (read demolition) is that a whole lot of poor people are about to be butt-fucked.

[aikido15]

10. donors who helped reelect Bush to fund

an extensive campaign to convince Americans -- and skeptical lawmakers -- that Social Security is in crisis and that private accounts are the only cure.

What a bunch of deceitful pricks! ERRRRRRRRR launch a propaganda campaign on the American people...I HATE THEM!:mad:

[annabanana]

20. And what COUNTER-PLANNING is going on?

Where are the reserves to counter this big PR push to sell another crock of shit to the American People??

[SharonAnn]

26. Exactly! Can't Move-On.org coordinate our $ and run ads?

I'll contribute and so will many others, but we need some organization to be coordinating this and running the ads.

I don't think the Democratic Party is going to do enough.

I've been asking this for almost two months now and haven't heard of a thing.

WTF?

[flaminbats]

36. another reason we need Dean to head the DNC...

as DNC chair Roemer will probably raise money to run ads for "privatized Social Security."

[aikido15]

61. If Dean doesn't head DNC...

and they let some conservative who calls himself a progressive democrat, that's it for me, I will be done with the Democratic Party. They suck anyway...it's all about the money for them also..I should have walked away in 2000 when they did this: http://makethemaccountable.com/misc/DemocratsShame2001.htm

[VegasWolf]

30. Umgh, counter planning by our democratic "leaders"? I don't

think I've ever seen such a spineless group of people.
Maybe the Greens will be of some help.

[firedoglake]

31. AARP, Nat'l Organization of Women, AFL-CIO and NAACP Gearing Up to Fight

I've scanned over their web sites this morning, and nobody seems to be taking direct contributions yet. You can read more at http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/01/gop-raising-100-mil-for-ss.html

[deacon2]

32. Hey, it works here in "Cawleefornya"

This appears to be out of the Governator playbook. If the legislature balks at his b.s. for whatever reason - need to be re-elected, latent sense of morality, etc. - he "takes it to the peephole of Cawleefornya" in the form of a well-funded advertising and/or initiative campaign. After a few weeks of non-stop lying on a grand scale, the drones finally see the error of their ways and line up to kiss his ring. This should work well for the Emperor and his friends on Wall Street - they make our dear Guvna's prevarications seem like stories at Sunday School.

[Karenina]

40. They're gonna fuck folks over

WHOLESALE. An economic Tsunami. OOOOOHHHHH, I can't bear to watch.

[LynnTheDem]

48. 1. if bush has to do a "propaganda blitz" then you know it's something bad

2. bush is LYING.

Poor Chicken Little Georgie...Dubya's lie in 1978 about SS going bankrupt by 1988 if it wasn't privatized fell on deaf ears. Good thing for bush, as he was DEAD WRONG. Now he's trying again with the same lie.

http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/midland.html

And it's quite the bushie FLIP-FLOP from 2002;

Social Security In The 2002 Elections:
Candidates Won By Renouncing Privatization

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6717

And a bushie FLIP-FLOP from 2001:

Commission Impossible:
Why Bush is abandoning Social Security reform

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/22/confessore-n.html

Dr. Paul Krugman sure makes it easy even for stupid rightwingnuts to understand that in fact bush is just lying -again- when he says Social Security is in "looming danger".

"Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current system, in whole or in part, with personal investment accounts - won't do anything to strengthen the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse. Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend crucially on convincing the public that the system is in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy Social Security in order to save it.

Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits.

The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html

Follow the money; who gets rich with bush's lying scheme? Not us. Gee what a surprise.

Report Predicts Deep Benefit Cuts Under Bush Social Security Plan

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/politics/19SOCI.html?ex=1104814800&en=9cada6bc648addf9&ei=5070&ex=1103086800&en=02fd1e95887df5be&ei=5070&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=top

And to bush, "SECURITY" is synonymous with Borrow, Speculate and Hope

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/opinion/10krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

So who DOES PROFIT from bush's insane plan? Wall Street, of course! What...did you think multi-millionaire "I don't understand how the poor think" bush actually gives a shit about We the People??? OH GROW UP!

"Oh, it's just another, another bushel of money. The money that's been on the sidelines in the bonds. The money that's in Social Security. Again, I think you will see a certain privatization happen. And again, it's an avalanche of money and there's just so much money on the sidelines. That's why the market has been so strong for months now."

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_12_05_atrios_archive.html#110268339411219288

[tibbir]

51. If Bush has his way we're all be f@$cked.

By now we should all realize that ANYTHING this crowd touts is bad, bad, bad - except for the corporations that have bought them off. If you have any doubts, take a look at Medicare "reform".

I'm 53 and on Social Security Disability and Medicare. I live from check to check as it is now and the thought that Bush et. al. might put the fix to this system scares the bejesus out of me. When I was in my 30's I never thought I'd receive a dime from Social Security. But then I became disabled in my early 40's. I didn't count on that happening. The system is designed right now NOT to be an investment program but to be a safety net for people in the same boat as I'm in. In order for us to have a minimum income to fall back on.

They've said that under no circumstances would the benefits of someone already receiving Social Security be reduced. But they were careful not to include Social Security Disability in that category.

I live in fear of these people.

[aikido15]

62. Well, that sucks...

That's something I am going to have to investigate because I am right there with you on SS Disability and Missouri State Medicaid, which, by the way, is better than Medicare, really. You are right though, they never included disability SS in this discussion...holy shit! We are about the same age and I was disabled in my early 40's. Took me FOREVER to finally get my benefits, I'm not losing them now...we WORKED for this money, it is OURS! Fuckers, this so pisses me off.

[Caria]

63. I haven't heard them explain how survivor benefits fit into this either

A big chunk of social security goes to dependents of disabled or dead workers.

We were children when our dad died. The social security survivor benefits were low (because he died before he had a chance to pay much in), but they sure helped. Without them, our mother would have needed to work even longer hours than she already did.