W.House pressures Democrats on Social Security

[UpInArms]

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2005-06-22T135308Z_01_N22516866_RTRIDST_0_RETIREMENT.XML

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - The White House pressured Democrats on Wednesday to come up with their own solutions for overhauling Social Security rather than simply reject President George W. Bush's proposals.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said a legislative proposal by a Senate Republican to overhaul Social Security without Bush's treasured personal retirement accounts "calls the bluff" of Democrats who say they will not negotiate as long as the accounts are on the table.

"I think what the real question here is: Are Democratic leaders going to start coming forward with ideas and solutions or are they going to simply put up a stop sign and say no to solving this important priority for the American people?" McClellan said.

But he said Bush still felt any permanent solution to overhauling Social Security needs to include personal retirement accounts.

...more...

Broken record - :puke:

[hlthe2b]

1. Social Security as it is, is the answer... The permanent solution

is repealing Bush* tax cuts! Damn it the Dems better tow this line, that's all I can say...

[wtmusic]

9. I would love to see Reid

counter that with, "The administration is stonewalling on the deficit! Ignoring the problem won't make it go away! What do they have to hide?"

etc etc

Throw that shit right back in his face.

[ekelly]

12. jobs, jobs, jobs

And they keep saying that the problem is that less workers are paying into the system.

Well.....DUH!
Stop giving companies incentives to ship our jobs overseas and maybe we will have more workers paying into the system again.

If companies want to stay registered/headquartered, etc....here in the US but ship out the jobs, they should have to pay for that, not get rewarded.

I suppose we can't expect a president who's never done any "hard work" to understand that.

[meti57b]

17. The "fewer workers" thing was taken care of with 1983 commission which

seriously increased our FICA contributions.

[bemildred]

18. Yes, I call on the Democrats to just reject all these attempts to meddle

with one of the most successful and solvent social programs in
US history.

Edit: well, there is one thing, they could make the FICA tax progressive,
or better yet fund Social Security from the general fund with
a highly progressive income tax restructuring.

[sadiesworld]

22. Teddy Kennedy has always warned against building too much

progressivity into SS. Once people feel they aren't getting out nearly what they paid into it, the rethugs will capitalize on that and start whittling away. It's their MO.

We don't have a problem anyway, particularly if the debt owed SS is paid.

[bemildred]

24. False argument, take it from the corporations.

The current system is highly regressive, it penalizes companies for keeping workers, i.e. "IT DESTROYS JOBS!!!". One of FDR's biggest mistakes, if it was a mistake, was paying for the system through a separate, regressive tax.

It would be the rich who would be "not getting out what they put in", a complaint they are already making, and the rest of us have them badly outnumbered, as situation that is getting worse all the time.

In any case, it's not an investment, it's social insurance.

I agree that the present system is not broken. It is probably the most solvent program in the Federal Government at present.

[sadiesworld]

25. It's not only the rich who would complain, but the Rushbots who seem to

spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the wealthy.

Their "it's not fair" whines have limited effect when applied to income taxes b/c the wealthy use more infrastructure, are recipients of corporate welfare, etc. I fear that their whines would be more effective with SS, particularly in the 90K-200K range (the very group that some here want to target for an SS increase).

Obviously, SS is an insurance program. But insurance companies don't base their awards on income.

Look, if someone were out there seriously proposing removing the cap entirely, or putting SS-type benefits in the general fund, there is certainly room for discussion. But this isn't the case and I'll bet a virtual dinner that it will not happen.

The end goal here (in addition to trying to shift $ to an overvalued stock market) is to bury the surplus and keep the cash cow producing. I guess I fear that these kinds of arguments lend credence to the idea that SS is a faulty program and needs to be fixed.

:hi:

[bemildred]

26. Oh, so you want me to be realistic, eh?

I just hate debating policy on the basis of what the RW propaganda slant will be. I don't wanna let them set the boundaries of debate.
But I admit that you have a point.
:hi:

[AnneD]

21. And those that don't tow the line....

should be summarily drummed out of the party. They are DINO and the sooner rid of them the better.

[Inland]

2. Doesn't SEEM like a bluff.

No negotiations until the private accounts idea is dead, dead, dead.

So whose declared it dead? How is it NOT going to be in the bill in conference when Bush's lickspittles sneak it back in? Do you expect Frist to say, "Mr. President, I PROMISED that we wouldn't add private accounts in the conference." "Oh, I respect that. I wouldn't expect you to go back on your word just to save my political ass, kiss up to the reactionary right and put money in the pockets of wall street."

[MichiganVote]

3. Quit spending our money, how's that for a challenge

[shoelace414]

4. how many times has a democrat said lift the cap?

[sadiesworld]

5. Too many.

[gratuitous]

6. What? Bush offered a proposal? Check that: ProposalS???

When was that? What was his proposal? No, proposalS, plural. I never saw any proposals out of the White House. What were the costs? What were the savings? How did each proposal affect the projected benefits for, let's just say, a 46-year-old man making $40,000 a year?

But there it is, right in the lede of the story: "George W. Bush's proposals." I wonder what that could possibly mean?

[bushisanidiot]

7. More flip-flopping from the hypocrites on the right..

wait five minutes. they'll change their minds again.

[patricia92243]

8. Up the ceiling for withholds - end of probelm. Period. Why don't Democ

Democrats say that and stick with it. Bush trying to get them to say something different just means he wants them to play into his hands.

If the Democrats don't stand up on this - their star program - they might as well fold it up - they are dead.

[wtmusic]

11. That is, if you accept that there even *is* a problem

which IMO is a mistake

[wicket]

10. The Democrats have a plan: it's called SOCIAL SECURITY

And their priority is stopping Bush from dismantling Social Security. Bush comes to destory Social Security Insurance, not save it.

[bluedog]

13. how its going to work

bush says Democrats .come up with plan......sure....raise the cap..

nope......... bush says

something else will be suggested.....bush may may not agree...........

But in the long Haul.
what ever Democrats come up with....... will be used in the future elections...that if SS goes wrong...the Democrats will be BLAMED!

bush is the one harping, preaching, warning about SS..........see he never had a PLAN!

[LiberalEsto]

14. And the WH official newsletter, the WashPost, chimes in

with an editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101542.html


The Washington Post is such an obedient little newspaper, isn't it.

[emanymton]

15. Tax And Spend Versus Barrow And Spend

Stand for what is right.

I'll say it because politicians won't, "Raise taxes." Social Security is not broke. SS has been a success and remains so today. The only time SS has been in trouble has been when POLITICIANS have tried to get something for nothing.

People support SS because it belongs to them. Those who are trying to do it in, are fools in Washington D.C.

Note: that the Congress people who tell the USA people that the people cannot have full paid medical coverage with no deductablility have complete free medical coverage with no deductability!


(And no it is not a typo error; barrow/borrow.)

[Dudley_DUright]

16. You first Bush

Has someone read you your polls on the Social Security issue lately? The pressure is on you little man.

[baby_bear]

19. Remove the cap

The Republicans will immediately cry out that that this would be unfair because those with high incomes would never reap their fair share in return in SS benefits. However, there are countless tax laws that favor the wealthy - and they can be itemized, named. Why not have one that makes the rich pay a bit more than what they will get back?

Remove the salary cap, now $90,000/year, on contributions to Social Security, and that will take care of the problem, completely if not almost completely. (Paul Krugman can provide the exact statistics here.)

I don't see why the Dems don't just toss this into the ring and say, "This is our proposal."

Take away the Repug's claim that the Dems are do-nothings.

The cap should be removed anyway. There's no cap on Medicare contributions for salaries.

In addition, if more money is need for SS, bonuses and stock benefits should be taxed for SS as well.

b_b

[sadiesworld]

20. We don't have a SS problem.

We have a debt problem. Why allow the rethugs to spin this into a problem with a perfectly good program?

[baby_bear]

28. I still think the cap should be removed

And this may be the perfect time to push it through.

I don't think it has to do with deficits. This is an equity issue.
There are so few times that we have the opportunity to educate the masses as to how the wealthy don't pay SS taxes past their first 90K in wages. Heck, for some of them, that's the first week of January.

b_b

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. Hell will freeze over before the repukes ever agree to that.

They think the rich should pay less taxes not more. :crazy: I agree that the cap should be removed.

[indepat]

23. Dems need to pressure WH on mounting budget deficits

[rocktivity]

27. Raise the salary cap and roll back the tax cuts

Removing the salary cap altogether would reduce EVERYONE'S rate. Solvency problem solved--forever.

:headbang:
rocknation

[baby_bear]

29. yep. what's the problem?

We got it solved, rocknation.

b_b

[LightningFlash]

30. What proposals?

SS isn't even in crisis right now. The democrats will not offer any proposal, and you clowns can kiss Howard Dean's collective ass. They don't need to offer any so called proposals until you cancel your abusive plans and agree against private accounts.

:shrug: :shrug: :thumbsdown: