Democrats asked for own plan to fix Social Security


By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee yesterday criticized President Bush's proposals to fix Social Security yesterday, while Republicans challenged Democrats to offer a plan of their own -- as former President Bill Clinton has urged.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...11802-6148r.htm

"I do too, President Clinton," Mr. McCrery said. "Show us what benefit cuts and tax increases you want us to implement."
I could never have said it better.

I agree with you. Lets hear a plan from the democrats.
Maybe they are waiting for a plan for mr. bush about health to solve the health care access crisis that is occurring RIGHT NOW not 30 years from now. They will be waiting a very long time for that plan (NEVER).

TQ, they are not going to come up with any plan, simply because they don't have any origional thoughts, other than the same old "same old". What do you expect? Your wonderful Collectivist Democratic Leadership is only about regaining power, not the well being of this country. It is all about power, yet they have finally lost it and "don't know how to get back up".

They might just surprise the both of us.
They would be smart to do so.
They cannot expect to be a leadership party unless they do so.
I do not expect them to though, because they are savoring bush's failure on this issue.

Am I to therefore conclude that you don't think the democrats are going to become a leadership party? That they would rather "hurl tsk tsks" as John likes to say?

I agree that the dems can't become a leadership party with no ideas. They can only react to others' ideas. This makes them the reactionary party, and therefore the follower.

All of the social security money was wasted on "homeland" security because of 19 pervert arabs + 1 in a cave in Afganistan.

Dubya's buddies in the oil and miltary arms/services industry are pretty happy... because they take all of it!

The zionists get free reign to exterminate the palestinians and destroy the Mascid Al-Aqsa to build their "mythical temple"

The retarded redneck jesus freeks (religious uber right) get to have Armageddon... so Jeeeesus can come!

Dk, and to think that they call us ignorant, stupid, and 'rednecks'.

It seems to me that Bill Clinton noticed this problem during the 90s; he made these proposals:

Bill Clinton on Social Security



Proposed a small portion of Trust Fund be in mutual funds
[During the 1990s] the state of our union was stronger than ever, and I outlined a program, a series of initiatives to create a secure retirement for the baby boom generation. I proposed to commit 60 percent of the surplus over the next fifteen years to extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund until 2055, a small portion of it to be invested in mutual funds.
Source: My Life, by Bill Clinton, p.842 Jun 21, 2004

Safeguard retirement plans and minimize risk
We should encourage companies to offer pension and retirement plans for their workers. We need to make it easier for workers to set aside enough of their current income for retirement.
We need to make sure that pensions are not at risk, either because they are dangerously underfunded or because they are vulnerable to misuse by employers.

As with health coverage, when workers change or lose their jobs, they ought to be able to carry their retirement savings with them and keep right on saving.

Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 55-56 Jan 1, 1996


Hmm... wonder what happened?

Religious uber right? Wow, this poor soul must have had some really bad things happen to him at church - like maybe OsManli's own behavior being in direct contrast with Jesus' teachings of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. Those are the things that Jesus spoke of. I'm curious as to which ones OsManli thinks are so repulsive?

Social Security is a payroll tax on the one hand and a set of transfers from the government on the other. If you think that paying the Social Security tax legally entitles you to some future benefits, you're wrong.

Despite the fact that your payroll taxes are called "federal insurance contributions," they are nothing like insurance policy premiums because there is no policy, no contract, and no legal claim benefits. Your payroll taxes are nothing special, just taxes. They're spent right away (meaning NOW) on checks to current retirees and items in the general budget, like the subsidies for universities researching the mating habits of snails.

Let's try that once more for the liberals: the deductions on your paycheck for Social Security is a tax and not any sort of insurance premium nor any guarantee of a future payment. The money that comes out of your paycheck buys you nothing, not even a right to retirement benefits.

We sorely need Private Savings Accounts. After all, who knows better how to save and provide for your retirement - you, or the government?

Common Folk Using Common Sense

Look slike they're gonna unveil one after all ...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ent_congress_dc

But why have a retirement system at all? Private accounts or not? That logic dictates the elimination of Soc Sec - and gov't sponsored retirement accounts, IRAs, etc.

Yeah, I wish that "W", and our Republican lawmakers, would tell our future seniors that now. I would love to watch their (Republicans) approval ratings hit rock bottom!



And private savings accounts are a guarantee?

Like I implied in a earlier post: I would love to see the Republicans have the audacity to state expat's quote. I wonder what the public response would be?

Excuse me. This man is not even sitting on a committee to do anything. So, they're not doing anything concrete yet.

Because some people will not have enough income to provide for their retirement. Even more who do have the income, simply will not do so.
Letting old people starve is not a politically acceptable alternative. Welfare for all who did not provide for their retirement would be very expensive. Government mandated savings of some sort seems appropriate. MARK

Healthcare crisis?

84.8 percent of Americans have health insurance.

There is a healthcare problem in the United States, there is not a crisis.

wait ..... governmnt mandated savings? Thats the government telling you what to do with your money. In other words ... a tax. You aren't supprting taxes, are you?

Social Security is a tax. Money comes out of your check and goes to the government. I prefer a private savings plan to replace SS. Where the INDIVIDUAL OWNS the investment.
And yes, I support the government taxing citizens to generate its operating revenue. MARK

I would rather have the government tell you to save some of your money than take it from you. Also, I don't have a problem with the government forcing people to save money. This is because most people feel like government (the taxpayers) has to take care of people with no money. Because of this, I support the government forcing people to be responsible. If it was feasible to eliminate government assistance to only those who make bad choices, then I wouldn't support the government telling people what to do with their money.

Wrong. Do a Google with LBJ and Social Security Trust Fund. I found this and this. Who knows, you might learn something about the history of social security.

Grizzly:
Yes, Clinton supported private accounts. So did Harry Reid. Great evidence to prove that democratic opposition is about regaining power, not what's best for the country. They are saying no to Bush, not to private accounts (at least in my opinion).

This is the heart of the issue. I say I can do it better.

Medicaid:Is in bigger financial trouble than SS. Yep, its "trust fund" was spent too. If I remember correctly, we are talking about a lot more debt than SS in that "trust fund" as well. Thanks again LBJ.

LBJ is not exatly my favorite politician. Real interesting fellow, though.

I tend to disagree.




mediamatters.org article

Well, this is what I found concerning the medicaid situation...




USAtoday article

While I don't usually do this, I will give mediamatters the benefit of the doubt. So Harry Reid is saying that the stock market is OK, but not private accounts. However, his rebuttal to the President's State of the Union is still a reversal of the quote.

In the original quote: He clearly is supporting taking a portion of SS money and invest in the stock market.


Here is what he said in rebuttal to George Bush's State of the Union. (FOX News)
Giving MediaMatters the benefit of the doubt still leads to a role reversal. Two possibilities for this:

1)He changed his mind
2)He saying whatever he feels is best at the time

If it's the first, fine. The second is despicable, but not surprising of any politician. I think Harry Reid is a joke. He enjoys the Thrift Savings Plan (which is a private social security account) because he is a government employee. Also, he is wealthy and invests a lot of his money into the stock market. He knows that, if done right, it isn't a gamble. However, he has no problem lying to the people dumb enough to listen to him.

I am having trouble finding the one you provided: Your Link



Is it a link at that site?

FOX News Source 1

FOX News Source 2

Sorry, didn't provide links to that quote because I didn't think you were questioning its accuracy.

Thanks dkward2 for finding them.

From Fox Source 1:



Like you implied in one of your threads: Wish I could read the whole context of that conversation on that day. (for Harry Reid)