Social Security Battle likely

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-centrists5jan05.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-centrists5jan05.story
THE NATION
Social Security Battle Likely
In a possible setback to White House efforts, two Democratic centrist groups plan to take a stand against individual investment accounts.
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

January 5, 2005

WASHINGTON — Two groups of prominent Democratic centrists plan to oppose the centerpiece of President Bush's proposal to restructure Social Security, potentially dimming administration hopes of building bipartisan support for its top domestic priority.

The Democratic Leadership Council, the party's leading centrist organization, and Third Way, a new group working with moderate Senate Democrats, expect to issue statements soon opposing Bush's push to divert part of the Social Security payroll tax into accounts that individuals could invest in the stock market, officials of the groups say.

The opposition is significant because both groups have aggressively argued that Democrats should not flatly resist changes to Social Security. Also, in the past some of the leading officials associated with the Democratic Leadership Council have backed the type of private investment accounts Bush is promoting.

But several factors — including the bitter political divisions on Capitol Hill, the stock market's mixed performance in recent years and the reemergence of large federal budget deficits — have reduced the number of Democratic centrists open to the idea.<snip>

[Benhurst]

1. "... Democratic centrists open to the idea." Centrists?

If such nut cases represent the center of the Democratic party, we are in sad shape, indeed.

[damntexdem]

3. Well, actually ...

they do, and we are.

[Rose Siding]

4. They are opposing it

That's good.

[damntexdem]

2. Too much even for the DLC? Good.

But we can't rely upon them to have any backbone.

What we need is a campaign to outrage Boomers about what the Rethugs are trying to steal from us.

[Ravenseye]

5. It kills me that this is even discussed.

Why is that if a commercial says 4 out of 5 dentists recommend trident people believe it, but if 4 out of 5 economists say that Social SEcurity is fine, just needs a tuneup, and any kind of privitziation would be disasterous, people just smile and shake their heads like the economists are morons?

Privitization of Social Security is being sold to the american people as not just a way to save a failing system, but a way to make their futures better and make more money.

1) Social Security isn't failing. The only way it'll fail is if the entire government stops paying it's debts and then we're all screwed anyway. *edit* it does need to be tweaked 1/10th of what we've spent on Iraq would solve the problem. *end edit*

2) It won't make their futures better. For most it'll reduce the amount of money they bring in, and for the rest it'll depend on the stock market. Retire the year after the stock market crashes? Well you're shit out of luck, sorry. No retirement for you.

[LynnTheDem]

6. We need SOMEONE to ask the RC why they warned their candidates AGAINST

campaigning on bush's SS plan in 2002, that they wouldn't win any votes if they did use his plan.

It's the SAME PLAN.

So how come now they're FOR bush's plan that they were AGAINST in 2002?

NOTHING has changed...except NOW they don't have to worry about winning votes.

And maybe SOMEONE could ask why THEIR OWN COMMITTEE found out bush's plan would require HIGH TAX INCREASES or DEEP BENEFIT CUTS, and STILL WOULDN'T pay out as much a percentage of benefits as SS would if we DID NOTHING.

I mean it would be kinda ncie if SOMEONE would ask such questions.

*sigh*