Pelosi criticizes Bush's Social Security plan - "Rip-off"

Pelosi criticizes Bush's Social Security plan

Wednesday, February 23, 2005


(02-23) 21:35 PST San Francisco (AP)

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called President Bush's plan to create private Social Security accounts a "rip-off" that was unfair to women and minorities.

Pelosi's speech Wednesday before hundreds of cheering supporters was one of at least 100 Democrats planned to give nationwide this week as they step up their opposition to Bush's plan.

"It's absolutely stunning, the rip-off that it is," Pelosi told the crowd at the San Francisco Library. "We will not be part of increasing the deficit ... or being unfair to women and minorities," who rely heavily on social security in their senior years.

Pelosi repeatedly called the plan a "a tax on our children" and criticized the administration's push for a "ownership society."

"What they really mean is: You're on your own," she said.


more
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/02/23/state/n213530S50.DTL

They are strong and out spoken on some pretty powerful principles/beliefs that we the Democratic voters love.
It is great to see them standing up for us.

:kick:

M Jackson case is more imporant to them

Back to airing Peterson case crap again! Not watching, but it's on while I work and DU post.

best lady in politics today. she really makes hillary look like a middle of the road republican..opps hillary is a middle of the road republican

That's what gripes me. After funding the Bush tax cuts, not to mention a lot of the operations of goverment, for twenty five years in order to build the trust fund, Bush is going to steal it.

His ideology says government can't be trusted. So he proves it by stealing the fund and our surplus in a way that would make a pirate blush.

Great talking point here. "Bush says government can't be trusted and then proves it by robbing trust fund."

So how much was in the trust fund before Bush took office?

We can grow 'em in California! :bounce:

The entire brainwashed American public needs to really hear this one.

No wonder Bush wants his bogus SS plan to go through, the only people it really serves are the white male populice of "The Good "Ol Boys Club"

Spread the word!

NOW THAT'S FRAMING THE ISSUE!!!! Terrific!

Mine is to raise the S.S. payment ceiling to $1 million in earned income. The system would be awash in cash, there would be no need to accelerate or even HAVE longer mandatory retirement age to qualify (from 65 to 67). In fact, we could LOWER the retirement age to qualify to age 60, thereby creating a jobs market for the next generation and boosting worker earnings due to demand. The "extra" cash coming in to S.S. would finance bonds to help the government finance its debt, and build a benefits nest egg for future recipients.

But don't worry...our Democratic "leaders" won't be proposing anything of the kind. If they do propose a raise in the ceiling, it will be to $100,000 or maybe $150,000 earned income...enough to barely touch the upper middle class and yet fully protect their generous sacred cow donors from any real "tax increase" resulting from a commitment on the part of the rich to take care of poorer workers (whose labor helped make the majority of the rich rich!) as they retire.

Just as the term conservative has been twisted all out of whack from its definition, so the term liberal has undergone a major adjustment.

I certainly can see why the labor movement has members advocating a pullback of its campaign funds going to Democrats, and the reinvestment of those funds into reinvigorating union organizing.

Though it does better on labor issues than the GOP, the Democratic party has largely left the common worker behind. It's the fat cats who count.

about a plan that would do some of the things that you are talking about. Of course, the one million dollar cap is not in there. But they do recommend raising the cap to include some of the upper middle class (in the 150-200 thousand a year range). This would at least be a start toward a better system. I have heard that raising the cap to 90,000 would only account for about 10 per cent of the deficit in the program in the outlying years; so a much higher cap, as you have stated, would be needed. For the life of me, I still don't understand why a higher cap is such an issue; 100-200 thousand a year is by no means rich, and social security might be a welcome supplement at retirement for this group. I will be working for another fifteen or so years, and with any luck will be at the lower end of that income level at that time. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a bit more in payroll tax if it would guarantee a supplement to my retirement.

The part of the plan that I don't like is a recommendation to raise the retirement age to 67; which is planned in the future anyway. According to what I read, if this is enacted now, it would account for about 25 per cent of that deficit. But even with these changes, it would take quite a bit more tweaking to get that outlying deficit down to something manageable.

To be up front; I also favor a partial privatization of the plan for workers under age 55. As long as the accounts are managed like the THRIFT savings plan afforded to government workers. I have had THRIFT savings for nearly 20 years, and have seen about a 9 percent return on that money. All this talk about losing your shirt under a privatization plan is just that - talk. The funds in THRIFT are indexed similar to the S&P 500. It is virtually impossible to lose money unless there is a catastrophic world-wide collapse of the financial markets. And if that happens, just what will US Treasury Bonds be worth at that point?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Most of us who work on past 65 (unlike Andy Rooney et al.) need the money. I figure I'll have enough to retire on when I'm 72. Teachers don't make the "not-very-much" 150 or 200K mentioned. And lots of us need the brain stimulation of working. You'll have to come up with some other way to fund SS.

When I said that making between 100-200k a year was upper middle class, I was thinking more of the teacher and say firefighter or police officer who together make that kind of income. I don't think anyone here would consider them to be rich.

of Corporations and other patrons?

Thank you so much Pelosi for standing-up for all of us. If only the freepers understood this.

It makes one wonder.