Need information to denounce Bush's Social security Plan

[M_Demo_M]

I want to write a letter to the editor of my local paper and would
appreciate DU input as to how/why Bush's plan is flawed.

I have a few points, but would like to add a few more.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Start here

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/opinion/05schwartz.html?oref=login

THERE are three arguments being made in favor of privatizing part of Social Security. First, the Social Security Trust Fund needs money and privatization will, in the long run, increase the amount of money available to retirees. Second, privatization will give people choice, and choice is good. And third, "it's your money," and you ought to be able to do with it as you wish.

Each of these arguments is dubious, or disingenuous, or both.

More at link


The top 4 at the Paul Krugman Archive
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/column.html

Stopping the Bum's Rush-1.4.05
Buying Into Failure-12.17.04
Borrow, Speculate and Hope-12.10.04
Inventing a Crisis-12.7.04

[M_Demo_M]

2. Thanks BlueEyed!

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Good Luck!

[LynnTheDem]

4. How about the Republican Committee's denouncing bush's SS plan in 2002?

1978:

Or how about a LIE from bush?

He said, in 1978, that SS would be bankrupt by 1988 if it wasn't privatized.

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


2001:

Commission Impossible:
Why Bush is abandoning Social Security reform

So when Bush became the latest Republican to back away from the commission, its critics were ecstatic. For months they had warned that conservative-style reform would require either unpopular tax increases or equally unpopular cuts in benefits.

Now it looked like the White House had come to the same conclusion.

"They're essentially coming up with a way for not to be tied to what they produce, so that he can't be attacked," crowed Hans Riemer, an analyst with Campaign for America's Future (CAF). "They clearly miscalculated the politics of it," says the DNC's Kavanaugh. "I think they're rethinking the entire proposition."

Attempts to skew the witness panels in favor of private accounts (which was opposed, according to The Washington Post, in a majority of the written statements solicited by the commission) have produced their own brand of hilarity.

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

2002:

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

A special Republican Campaign Committee task force instructed candidates there was no way to win votes with the Bush Social Security plan.

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

2004:

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://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70E11F73F550C748CDDAB0994DC404482

The REPUBLICANS never liked bush's plan either coz they KNEW it WOULD LOSE THEM VOTES. Now they don't worry about votes. So SCREW AMERICANS.

SOP.

[jswordy]

5. M_demo_M, you'll like these too!

http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eblackburn5e_20050105.htm

http://www.pressconnects.com/today/business/stories/bu010505s139829.shtml

[Robbien]

6. Well obviously some problems are

"any proposal offered is likely to cut traditional benefits for younger workers to help fund the future shortfall, with returns from their private accounts expected to cover, but not guarantee, the difference. Also, the administration must identify $800 billion to $2 trillion over 10 years to continue funding retiree benefits once the payroll taxes are diverted into accounts."

Younger workers are those under the age of 55 (the cut-off age of guaranteed traditional benefits). Imagine the people who are in their early fifties and later fourties who have a very short time to make up the difference.

[DaedelusNemo]

7. My current collection of info, links & arguments in here

http://www.democrats.us/beta/forum/view_topic.php?id=2103&forum_id=3&jump_to=10387#p10387

[M_Demo_M]

8. Thanks to all for your help!