Democrats want to revive Soc. Sec. issue

[Judi Lynn]

Democrats want to revive Soc. Sec. issue
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Social Security has drifted out of the national debate, but Democrats, eyeing the senior vote, are trying to revive the issue — just in time for the midterm elections.

Democratic leaders are advising their party's congressional candidates to focus on what the Republicans might do to Social Security given the chance.

"The president hasn't given up yet, even though the American people resoundingly rejected his proposal for private accounts," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Politicians from both parties acknowledge Social Security is likely to face insolvency in future years as the population ages, although they don't agree on the solutions.
(snip/...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_el_ge/social_security_politics

[cyclezealot]

1. Dem's , sure hell had better.

that is bush's next primary hatchet job. TOo much cash in it for his 'base.' If American people are suckered in by Bush's scare tactics, when social security is defunded, they will only have themselves to blame.

[FloridaPat]

2. Yeah, 40 years down the road when the Boomers turn 100.

Pure bladerdash. The only way SS can go bankrupt is the govt screws it up.

[Yupster]

4. Which they have already

The social security assumptions all assume that the government will pay out the hundreds of billions of dollars of surplus that is being saved up for the baby boomers retirements.

Oops, that money's already been looted.

[Ignacio Upton]

13. How can they assume that the Boomers will still be around in large numbers

In 2040? They will be in their 80's and 90's then, and it's unlikely that the national age expectency level will go up dramatically. Gen Xers (late Gen Xers, people born in the 1970's) will be retiring at this point, but OTHO, there will be more Gen Yers to support them, in addition to the children of the Gen Xers and early Gen Yers who will be in young adults.

[papau]

3. S S Trustees project both "likely insolvency in 2041" and "no problem

One projection having more conservative assumptions (read lousy growth in the economy) than the other.

No projection was done by the SS Actuaries for the SS Trustee's Report with anything near historical growth, or even growth at the level that is the median level in bad times such as those years when the GOP have the Presidency. All 3 projections are quite conservative, yet one still shows no problem ever.

Still, raising the retirement age for full benefits (Reagan's 67 moving up to 68 by 2030 and to age 70 by 2055) while keeping early retirement at 62 is likely to be a part of any restructuring of the finances of SS - if such is passed. It will also have to include the wage base going to $220,000 immediately and thereafter following the increase in the Erisa covered wages level increase. But that will only happen if we take back Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_el_ge/social_security_politics

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Social Security has drifted out of the national debate, but Democrats, eyeing the senior vote, are trying to revive the issue — just in time for the midterm elections.<SNIP>

Politicians from both parties acknowledge Social Security is likely to face insolvency in future years as the population ages, although they don't agree on the solutions.

Overhauling the landmark New Deal program to aid seniors was President Bush's post election goal in 2004. His proposal called for allowing workers under age 55 to divert some Social Security taxes into personal accounts in exchange for lower guaranteed benefits.<SNIP>

And Republicans have made clear they're not giving up on changing the program.

In June, Bush said in a speech that he remains determined to make changes in the Social Security system, as well as other federal programs like Medicare. "If we can't get it done this year, I'm going to try next year," he promised.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said in interviews that he wants to bring up Social Security again next year.

And Rep. Jim McCrery (news, bio, voting record), R-La., who heads a House Ways and Means panel dealing with Social Security, has promised to "come up with a Social Security plan that we can all embrace — Republicans and Democrats."
<SNIP>

[dailykoff]

5. Oh no!

Any position other than "hands off of SS" would be a big mistake. If Dems go the "let's reform it, but let's do it right" route, they'll just reopen the door for Chimp and the gang to get what they wanted the first time, a la election "reform" and No Child Left Behind.

Don't Dems ever learn? :banghead:

[Megahurtz]

11. Right!

They just need to say hands off! NO stupid reform! SS is fine as it is!

The stupid Dems are folding once again!:grr:

[Seedersandleechers]

6. I don't get it.

I'm 53 years old and have been paying SS tax for 38 years-for my parents and myself. If I get back all that I have paid fine. But how can they tax someone for all these years and not provide any benefit? :shrug:

[FloridaPat]

12. The country goes under, so does the debt and everyone is left

with zero. Of course the fact that the country already is bankrupt isn't well known yet.

[sarcasmo]

14. The Right doesn't care about you, or how much you paid into S.S.

The only thing these Jackals want to do is Privatize everything.

[grytpype]

7. Finally! Social Security should be a big issue for the Dems.

Bush tried to kill it already, and he said he's going to try again if the Repubs hold Congress.

[stepnw1f]

8. excellent

Thanks Rove... you've given Dems many issues for years to come, you greedy power hungry idiot!

[Chemical Bill]

9. What will the repugs do to your kids if given the chance? n/t

[CBHagman]

10. And here's Sebastian Mallaby claiming that...

...the Democrats don't want to discuss Social Security. And we know that no one at The Washington Post is ever mistaken about anything. :eyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100872.html

If Democrats cared about poor women and minorities, they would be clamoring to reform Social Security. But instead they get a childish gratification out of stamping their feet and refusing to discuss the subject.

And look! He's helpfully included his e-mail address... :evilgrin: