WSJ: Bush Loses Key Group on Social Security

The Journal provides this erudite graphic to expand upon the Social Security scam:

HEY KIDS! ARE YOU READY TO SPIN? <hold up applause sign>

It's the Demon-crats fault! They won't play nice!

I thought that was now-verboten. Also interesting that they quote a conservative definitely criticizing Bush:

"Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that often sides with administration policies, says the president allowed partisanship to rise "to a level I never would have imagined he would," given his 2000 campaign as "a uniter, not a divider," and thereby has helped unite Democrats."

I almost didn't click on the link because of how the article in the beginning frames the SS debate as political. But it wasn't bad.

That's because even they know it's going to flop.

economic policies. I can't remember where, but I swear he criticized him for the tax cuts while we are running a deficit.

AEI is a conservative, but mostly Libertarian, group.

sometimes makes a good argument against Bush. But remember that Newt Gingrich is also at AEI.

...entire reason for proposing his plan:

A. Bush says Social Security is in crisis when any thinking person knows that it is not. That is simply a lie.

B. Bush says that privatization will not affect retirees and social security beneficiaries now on the program or anyone who is now 55 or older. That is another lie.

C. Bush says that all plans are on the table and will be considered. That is another lie.

D. Bush says that his privatization plan gives holders a nest egg that they can pass on to their children. That is another lie.

E. Bush says that privatization is a choice and those who wish to opt out can. That is another lie.

F. Bush says that privatization of Social Security is the only way to solve the problem. That is another lie.

Here are the reasons why these are all Bush lies.

The Social Security program has problems and problems can be fixed. It is not in crisis.

If Social Security revenues are decreased by 40% or more, ALL beneficiaries will be affected.

Bush has yet to put details of his plan on the table.

Privatization will give Wall Street bankers the nest egg while those who pay in will be lucky if they see anything left for their heirs.

Privatization will be mandatory for those who do not elect to risk going into private accounts will loose what they pay into Social Security.

Privatization is not a solution to solve Social Security's problem, it will eliminate Social Security altogether as a social safety net for millions of workers while enriching the wealthiest in society.

Think only a moment about what he puts on the table and what he does under the table. From the beginning, when he didn't win in 2000, he has put crap on the table, on the plate, and shoved it down the throat of america. That is bad enough, but under the table he, has created a war, killed thousands of americans, built his own fortress with FBI, CIA, Pentagon, and the Federal Courts including soon, the Supreme Court.
Whether or not SS goes wherever is not as important as trying to keep in mind that what he is doing under the table is far MORE IMPORTANT TO THIS NATION REMAINING FREE!
Some things for certain are; there is no funds left in SS (it is in federal bonds which are unpayable) there is no funds for schools, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, and every day the american debt gets closer to international bankruptcy!
If we can anticipate the worst under the table, perhaps we can find some major flaws out front before it becomes bush's law!

Where? Ask yourself that... and WHY has he given the 1% RICHEST Millionaires in this country, along with the SUPER RICH corporations the biggest tax cuts of them all.

Mind you, next his agenda it to make them bigger and permanent.

Now, ask yourself "why?" Why would any President to this to 99 percent of the rest of us, which OBVIOUSLY includes those that voted for him.

It can't be that they want MORE MONEY. They've gutted us of that. POWER maybe? And again, ask yourself, "WHY?" When we were the most powerful country before BUSH took office.

WHO BENEFITS? FOLLOW THE MONEY.

What we need RIGHT NOW, is to START getting our local folks to get Voter Cards and get every Repuk out of office in 2006. We're out numbered on the Hill and it's obvious that without our Dem's, Bush will continue to LIE, LIE and GUT us of any and everything.

I am learning each day that more and more Republicans are FED-UP and do not buy into this crap anymore, either. They are super sorry they voted for Bush & Co. It's so close to the ruins of our nation (China will own us soon) well, I perish the thoughts.

:scared:

Bush will "experiment" with the social security of federal workers.

The analyst said that's Bush's "ace in the hole" plan..

for those who switched to FERS in the belief that it would be preferable to the old CSRS plan.. I can't tell you how glad I am that we didn't get stuck in this meatgrinder.

and I would think there would be some kind of legal protection. What a monster.

the American public,then Bush must be able to do it.

Since these "conservative House Democrats -- the self-named Blue Dogs -- and a few like-minded senators. A source of support for Mr. Bush in the past" vote against Democratic principles and vote with Bush on issues such as tort reform, the bankruptcy bill and for the appointment of the torturer Gonzales, these Blue Dogs are just Republicans voted into office using Democratic money.

Yeah, we'll have conservative democrats. Look, if we have enough conservative democrats in both houses, we'll be back to majority status. Pelosi and Reid are much better at party discipline that Gephardt and Dashcle. I was openly rooting for Carson and Mongiardo to win. Its all about power here. I'm proud of the Blue Dogs for being Democrats

or more properly: prevented elections from being stolen?

have conservative democrats protected democratic platform issues, or gutted them?

answer that one.

Speaker Pelosi or Speaker Hastert?

Lets get back in power, then fight it out.

Read the article and see how angry they are

Lethal injection or gas? :eyes:

saying I should be happy with republican lite because its not full strength republican is defeatist and wrong.

I WISH blue dog democrats were merely more rightist democrats, but they arent'. They are merely moderate republicans who run as democrats.

Give me a progressive democrat or get out of my face, I say.

and I READ the article. are you READING me?

have blue dogs protected any progressive democratic platform?

Democrats do not have the huge pockets of the RNC but the DNC wastes money putting these Republican Blue Dog Democrats in office. When in office they support Republican bills and give bipartisan cover to the GOP.

Having Blue Dogs in the middle of the Democratic party just fogs up the Democratic message. How can Democrats say they are the party against torture or the Republican Debt Slavery bill if Blue Dog Democrats are voting for torture and the Republican Debt Slavery bill?

They are already out there in the South and conservative areas. Most of them are economic liberals and social conservatives. They are apparently against gutting Social Security and other programs that help their poor constituents.

It makes perfect sense to have liberal Dems in liberal districts and conservative Dems in conservative districts. It's perfectly normal to represent your contituents' interests. Keep in mind that Democratic constituents are real people and Republican constituents are corporations.

Chairman Dean welcomes diversity of opinion in our party as a way to have a broad range of support across all 50 states. That's what makes us better than the lock-step fascist Republicans.

http://www.bluedogdemocrats.com/

It's about representation. Just because they don't toe the liberal line doesn't mean they shouldn't be Democrats. I prefer liberal candidates more often and vote for them whenever I can. However, here in the middle of Red America we moderate-to-liberal voters don't expect a dyed-in-the-wool liberal to win anything. It ain't gonna happen.

Face facts. There are states in this country - NC being one - where overt socially liberal candidtates will not win. I'm always going to side with the Dem because she will represent my populist values more than any corporate whore Republican ever will. That she isn't a "perfect" Democrat won't stop me from supporting her.

best.quote.ever.

Bush and the Repubs are picking off their members (Texas Redistricting), running up a Huge Deficit (Blue Dogs hate defificts big time), and the trust isnt there( WMD, Medicare bill cost hidden, pick any issue).

They're more partisan than most of us. Lets cheer the blue dogs!

Hatch has been crowing all through this morning's news that the bankruptcy bill is so good because it has overwhelming supporting. It has bipartisan support he crows. Bi-partisan my butt. Only Republicans and Republican Blue Dog Democrats voted for it.

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

:eyes:

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

nuts.

those who support Democratic policies and reject those who oppose them are really republicans....sheesh.

I have to be honest though. At one time, I thought that it wouldn't matter if Ben Nighthorse Campbell of CO and Phil Gramm of TX and many others joined Strom Thurmond in switching from the Democratic party to the Republican party. I thought we'd just be left with "real" Dems.

What I didn't realize is that the party in power has ALL the power. They control the agenda in Congress. They control the purse strings. All of that control in Congress means that they control the country. For example, Bush is doing all kinds of things that a president should not do. If the Congress were controlled by Dems, there would be hearings and there would be some accountability.

What I am saying is that I finally grew up and stopped saying, "If I can't have it ALL my way, I'm taking my ball and going home."

By the way, I did call my senators to thank them for voting against the bankruptcy bill. Did you contact your senators to express your views?

:eyes:

screw Zell Miller. There's a huge difference between conservative Democrats and Republicans. Issues like Social Security make all the difference. Trust me, you don't want Republicans in those congressional seats.

and if so, why is it wrong?

yeah, I want them in those seats too. We can't always get what we want, it's what the constituents in those districts want. A lot of those people want Social Security and unions, but not other liberal stuff like gun control or abortions.

then its a nonchoice, and the voters suffer. Even if in that election, republicans win...at least the people who want to vote against them feel the effort is worthwhile and can get behind the campaigns for the next election.

Why should progressive dems work hard to elect dems who are opposed to everythign they believe in anyways, simply because they call themselves dems?

obviously, I'm not explaining myself well. I will give it one more shot:

As long as you offer the voter a choice between a republican and a republican-voting dem, they do not have the opportunity to change.

Here's a thought: maybe people are voting in the bluedog dems because they want ANYONE BUT THE REPUBLICANS and that is the only choice offered. Maybe if you ran a progressive dem instead, THEY STILL MIGHT WIN! amazingly, though, we will never know, will we?

because so many of the Republicans are hiding out in the Democratic party behind the Blue Dog label. When almost 40% of the Democratic Senators votes with Republicans all the time to screw the middle class, why should Democrats be happy they are wearing a D label?

If a person supports a Republican platform, then they should solict Republican money to run for office. They should not lie and say they are Democrats and steal Democratic money to put them into office and then vote Republican on each and every bill.

Blue Dog dems that so many here would rather do without are saving our bacon on social security. Or am I not reading between the lines enough?

If Republicans had those seats, then we'd really be screwed.

in the south and western states. Blue dogs feel like they are just as much democrats as anyone else. It's a real struggle out here just to keep fundies and "give everything to big business" types from completely taking over. So give us a break.

to lose at that point?

they will for the most part support him. I think rejecting proposals out of hat is a bad idea no matter who is proposing it. It seems to me that democrats in red states are likely to be non-partisan and be willing to work with everyone. I think they are trying very hard to work with a president that refuses to work with anyone and that looks like a mistake to me, because they aren't going to get any love from bush. It will be funny when bush and Ben Nelson have been so buddy-buddy and in 2006 I fully expect bush to stab him in the back and swear up and down what a bad man Ben is. Fundie groups will come out of the woodwork to smear him on family values issues and try to label him an "obstructionist" That's gratitude for you!

preservation.
You're saying as long as they have a majority or a dem prez they MIGHT vote like a democrat, but if they don't, they won't in order to protect their political careers.

again, I say, if that's the case, what foothold do you have to lose?

look around, we have a repug prez, and repug congress, THEREFORE, blue dog dems will vote like republicans....sooooooo...why have them?
The argument seems to be that we need to keep them, as placeholders, in the HOPE they will help us out SOMETIME. My argument, though, is to replace them with real Dems to help us out NOW while we really need help...because as long as we have bluedog dems taking a space that could be a real dem, we will NEVER get to a point where they could help us, because they're helping the other guys ensure that won't happen.

get it?

Dennis Kusinich, Barbara Boxer types are unelectable in the 60-35 bush type of states. If you're going to run real liberals you're going to lose badly. It's either blue dog democrats or Republicans - and we're probably not talking about Lincoln Chafee or Arlen Spectre types. I'd prefer to stay a national party, thanks.

that is what I'm saying is the crux of the problem. As long as the democrats who decide who will run ONLY run conservative dems, how will you know that people would have voted for a liberal dem?
the answer is that you won't, ever. period. therefore, the concept of "foothold" is bogus.
and again, it proves my contention that as long as we support and nominate conservative democrats who vote like republicans, there's really nothing to lose, is there?

I understand you're point: you're willing to compromise principles to remain at the table. I'm making the point though that sacrificing principles guarantees only that more people at the table have compromised principles.

Dems are united against Bush's social security privatization plans turn into a Dem-bashing thread?

The rules state:

Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements.

when someone tells me my only choice is a republican or right wing democrat, I have a problem with the list of choices.

If my expressing my opinion is considered inflammatory...er...ok, but I also think I have a valid point: if we feel that we need to have conservative democrats who voted with republicans on most issues, when we are ALREADY in the minority, then where and how will we ever achieve a majority? Wont voters simply reject conservative dems as "republican lite" eventually? And won't the democratic machines in those districts simply continue to nominate more and more conservative candidates? Why would they consider a more progressive candidate?

no, seriously, I'm asking.

What some here seem to be proposing is a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure for the party: as long as we get people in that SORTA look like dems, this will eventually ensure a victory for the party!....

no offense, but I don't see that as logically sound. I"m not trying to be disruptive or trolling...I honestly disagree that is a valid strategy because it will ultimately be counterproductive.

look at this way: if I'm Pepsi, and I make a product and sell it like this: "It almost tastes like COKE, but it's really Pepsi"... will that help Pepsi or Coke? Will people buy "almost Coke"? and even if they do, won't the develop a taste for Coke and more Coke?

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

I think I have a valid point, however, in regards to which strategy is more productive.

I would rather replace current right wing dems (and republicans) with more progressive dems. I think that bodes better for the continued viability of party in the long run.

I am just saying that I have a right to my opinon

Actually, we have common ground in that we both want more progressive dems in Congress and in the White House.

Have you ever worked in a political campaign? I think if you do you will find it is not easy getting a progressive elected in many parts of the country.

Even in progressive Montgomery County Maryland, it was hard to defeat the Republican incumbent, Connie Morella. Connie was much more moderate than many Blue Dog Dems.

However, at the beginning of each Congress, Connie, of course, voted to have her party lead the House. That vote made Tom DeLay a powerful man in the House.

If so many Blue Dog Dems had not been defeated in other parts of the country, our new progressive Dem would have been in the majority party and would have had some power. Becaue the Blue Dogs were defeated, our new progressive Dem has no power.

So, if you really want to make a change, I suggest you start working in campaigns to help your guys win.

you are missing my point. When I say having a blue dog dem is no better than having a republican, and in fact dilutes the democratic platform, and when I say I'd rather have progressive dems in their place, you seem to be misperceiving that I would prefer to have republicans replace them. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying blue dog dems, as long as they exist, continue to erode the strength of the party because they continue to strenghten the opposing party by siding with them, and they continue to offer the public a nonchoice, reinforcing that concept of why vote for dems if they are only there to be either coopted or bullied by republcans?


again, like I asked in another thread: why are the only two choices republicans or dems who vote like republicans? Further, as long as people accept that as inevitable, we will never break free of this continuing cycle. At what point do you, someone who appears to support conservative democrats, ever decide that enough footholding has taken place for you to start supporting progressive dems instead? I'll answer you: never. Why should you?

I'm amused when you say "help your guys win". And you suggest I work on the campaign for that to happen. That's not the problem. The problem is the current democratic power structure in the counties you speak of will never nominate progressive candidates, as long as they continue to feel as you do.

And as long as we're willing to accept political leftovers and compromise with the enemy in order to stay at the table, we will find out ability stay at the table diminishing. As long as we say "submission is the key to dominance" we will continue to become less and less powerful.

It can be hard, heartbreaking work. You're much wiser to sit on the sidelines & criticize.

It can be hard, heartbreaking work. You're much wiser to sit on the sidelines & criticize.

I suppose you feel strongly about attacking me personally.

Hope it made you feel better and like, a greater human being.

How about addressing my points, if you are able?

It had been suggested you actually get involved in local politics, but you have every right to remain passive.

It's your life.

where did I say I was passive?

further, that is still ad hominem and does not address any of my arguments.

perhaps you have no counters to my points?

What, exactly, are your "points"? You prefer Progressive Democrats to pseudo-Republicans? Who doesn't?

But you've chosen to take over a thread on Democrats working against Republicans & begin a discussion of Democrat policies you don't like.

I've not taken over this thread, although I agree this is a sidetrack of the original post. However, *I* was not the one who sidetracked it. I only responded to posts once it had already sidetracked...
I think people who keep posting about lerkfish are sidetracking as well.

riiiight?

I only responded originally because someone said our only choice was between republicans or bluedog dems, and I reject that notion. I think there is a third choice.

someone else said it much better than I:

vi5 said:

Moderates don't have any problem voting for a hardcor conservative..
who framed/marketed himself the right way...so if you pick the correct candidate and he frames himself the correct way then they theoretically shouldn't have a problem voting for a hardcore liberal either.


Further, my points, are not as your represent them: I'm speaking about the strategic mistake of supporting candidates who oppose your issues because they are dems, in the apparent vain hope that by doing so eventually your issues will be fairly addressed. that's very different from just the shallow "I prefer progressive dems". I'm discussing the future viability of the party and whether compromise in opposition to your principles in order to retain a position actually protects your position in the long run.

However, I will agree that as long as I keep responding to folks like you, who wish to still my voice rather than undersand my position, this thread will continue to sidetrack. I think I am making valid points, worthy of discussion, but I agree this is not the best place for those points.

and yours wasn't. I quoted the rule because I did not think it was being applied fairly.

Assuming that you are a Democrat, you are the Democratic Party. What steps are you taking to elect good Democrats?

always have voted democratic...have contributed to Kerry's campaign, and others, and have attended rallies, put up yardsigns among other things...

but I'm at a loss as to why I am the issue? How do you get to grill me on my viability as a democrat, as if that were the point? Why do you wish to make me the point of your posts, instead of addressing the points I'm making?

and there WILL be a fallout of the major legislative changes impacting bankruptcy, financial, tax breaks for the rich, polluted environment, questionable war and death of our children and other human beings of this world, global warming, severe limitations on lawsuits, job loss, jobs shipped overseas, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, DSS, Health insurance, Education
...these will effect EVERY American, including those who are right now listening to Blowhard Limbo and chant his talking points.
After a time, they will NOT be immune to the fallout of these pro-business/anti-individual changes in the American Way of Life
Reality just hasn't hit them yet, but all these changes are going to have a huge impact to everyone. In fact they are just as likely as anyone else (ie a "Demoncrat") would be to the dismaying outcome of the issues they are blindly championing now. This is why there is a concept that the 'rednecks who voted for Bush are not intelligent'. They ARE (for the most part ;) intelligent but they cannot see the ramifications beyond what the paid propagandists/pundits are rousing.

We can.

This madness isn't going to last, and when it ends... there's gonna be a whole WORLD of 'splaining to do!

When the average American starts realizing they are getting a royal screwing and look to the people who voted all these measures in, do we really want these politicians to be known as Democrats?
If it talks like a Republican, walks like a Republican, looks like a Republican, and VOTES like a Republican then it is indeed a Republican... n'est pas?

agreed. At what point does compromise become complicity?

Like where I live. Our Democratic rep. is way too conservative for my taste, but this is a conservative district. A very conservative one. You are not going to get a liberal elected here.

So are we better off with a conservative who does at least vote for the Democrats in the leadership elections or a Republican who wants to keep Hastert in charge?

You might not like it, and I don't, but those really are our options in a lot of places. That's the reality of the situation, and all the wishing--or bitching--in the world won't change it.

absolutely any story, even, incredibly to me, the Jeff Gannon story, can be and has been used against the dems.

to do that. And you are right, the Republicans succeeded in turning the fact that Cheney's daughter is gay against the Dems.

I just don't like seeing the Dems turn these kinds of things against Dems.

(Although I admit I came in late and was unable to read all the deleted posts)

If we don't keep an eye out on what our own people do and speak out when we feel the need arises, then we are just the same as the Reprobates we malign who back their people blindly --no matter if right or wrong!

IMO the Blue Dog Democrats (from what I have read and I am far from knowing everything about them) vote with the Reprobates and FINALLY decide to stand up to something ...only this something just happens to be where the huge majority of their constituents are up in arms over. This sure leads me to think they are just voting with the polls instead of voting for what is RIGHT

That is why I am and always have been a Democrat -- because the Democrats do what is right for the welfare of our PEOPLE, NOT Money Interests! The Reprobates may SAY they're Oh-So-Christian, but it is the Democrats who actually put the Golden Rule into ACTION.
If we turn into just another party of blind following then I shall leave it.

I do agree with you that we just can't stand up and say 'hey these guys should be replaced' because it is hilarious to think something like that can be so easily accomplished. And no, we cannot afford to lose ANY numbers in the House or Senate.
But they too are going to have to answer in the long run... I'm not worried about bullsh*t being turned against Dem's because for the most part they are simply laughable, but I AM concerned over legitimate complaints, and these sound legitimate.

There's no easy answer, but speaking up against what you believe is wrong, for the good of the party, is hardly Dem bashing.
IMO anyhow.

Edit: Tried to clean up some grammar. Mingia! :D

that they have actually worked to help elect a congressional candidate.

some of us (like me) work in professions that preclude direct participation in a political campaign. I'm a journalist.
The things I've already mentioned: contributions, attending rallies, yard signs, are grey areas, but actively working on a campaign will end my career.

now, the real question is: do you only allow those who've worked on a campaign to express their opinions? What other rules do you have, and am I allowed to grill you on yor fitness to speak here?

I was not going to post in this thread any longer, but I felt this needs to be addressed.

"Give me a progressive democrat or get out of my face, I say."

The poster who wrote these words fails to acknowledge that in many, many districts the only person who can get elected is either a Blue Dog Democrat or a Republican.

Since the poster does not want a Blue Dog Democrat (get out of my face, the poster said), then by default the rep will be a Republican in many Red areas.

In my opinion, bashing Blue Dog Democrats is Dem-bashing.

I will say it one more time. Without Blue Dog Democrats, Teddy Kennedy can make all the speeches he wants, but nothing will come of them. The progressives need a Dem majority to have any power and without the Blue Dogs that will never happen.

I think we would all prefer progressives Democrats, but there are many places, like there I live, where we can either run a conservative or lose. And while it's all very nice to be pure, we are not in a position to be giving away House seats.

Blue Dogs support the current foreign policy, supports Nafta/Cafta, supports shutting down social programs, and supports the corporate agenda.

Even if there were a Dem majority, there would never be enough votes to pass a Democratic bills because the Blue Dogs would vote against all Democratic bills. Plus we would have had the honor of paying to put those Blue Dogs in those Democratic seats so they could vote against the Democratic party.

We need to start culling out the blue (more like yellow) Dog Dems. I come from the unique point of having voted for Salazar in Colorado. I wish I had voted for the more progressive guy in the primaries, but I got lulled into believing a more "centrist" Dem had a better chance of winning. Now he has voted in Gonzales, Ohio votes, bankruptcy bill. I realized my idea of centrist and the Colorado party's idea of centrist were not the same. They meant Republican-lite.

I think the Dems need to have core values that Dems must stand for, and if a Dog Dem votes against the core values consistently they can be thrown out of the party. If a Dem gets thrown out or flips on their own, they should be required to pay back the DNC any election donations. I really think the Dems need to have a set of values that differentiates them from the Republicans. They should have some issues that they allow leeway in (we don't need the lockstep that the hijacked Repub party now has)because we do believe in tolerance and difference of opinion. But not in our core values.

People say you've got to vote in Dog Dems or else get no Dems in some areas. Maybe. But not in Lieberman country. And I bet not in Salazar either, if the election was done right. That's why this time around I'm not donating to the DNC. Instead, I'm putting my money into whichever progressive will give Lieberman a fight. And Salazar when its his time. Also, I'm putting it into election reform and (hopefully) a national independent exit poll so we can find out if the vote is legitament. If the Dems had core values and made their people hold to it, if the core values were in step with the majority and was different from Republican, then I think people would stop voting 3rd party. Many who stopped voting would start voting again.

This dovetails into the Casey Jr thread. What does it mean to have a "pro-life" Dem? I don't know since pro-life is a repub term to me. I like that Dean said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare". However, to me rare means that Dems will support legislation significantly reducing unwanted pregnancies. It means finding ways to reduce embryo cast offs at IVF facilities. It means finding a new birth control since the pill also causes abortion. To me, rare does not mean nibbling at the right to have an abortion. That is Republican-lite. That is unacceptable.

Its time for the Dem party to define themselves, define their core values, and insist their members may not vote against those values.

Personally I think some of those Blue Dog Dems are BullDog Gannon Dems (somebody has them in a vise).

and caved on something he wanted?

This social security thing is quite funny, though. I wonder if his advisors are letting on to him that he's losing.

The US Government will go Bankrupt, NOT Social Security
Here is the Solution

Sean Lewis
February 3 2005

The US Government will go bankrupt, not Social Security. There I said it, but someone had to.

Bush is hiding the fact that his fiscal economic plan of tax cuts, tax refunds, deficit spending and pre-emptive war agenda has put the US on the verge of Bankruptcy.

The Social Security Trust Fund has a surplus of 1.8 Trillion Dollars invested in US Government Bonds earning interest. Social Security will not be issuing funds greater than it is taking in until 2018 or later. At that point Social Security should be able to begin to Redeem the 1.8 Trillion PLUS in US Government Bonds.

Does this sound insolvent to any one?

So what is the REAL issue?

The emperor has no clothes.

Bush has hidden the severity of the National Deficit and the National Debt by cooking the Government Books.

Bush has taken the Social Security Receipts we all pay every day in our paychecks and has replaced them with US Government IOU's. Understand, in and of itself there is nothing wrong with this. However, Bush has used this funds to hide the true depth of the Budget Deficit. When Bush calculates his Budget, he erroneously includes the Social Security Receipts. The Budget Surplus Bush inherited, which bought Bush the election when he promised to give it back to Americans; were the Social Security Receipts. In essence the tax cuts, and refund checks were financed by Social Security Receipts. Bush raided Social Security and gave the money disproportionately to the richest Americans, Buying the Election. In Doing this Bush Bankrupted Social Security doing a reverse Robin Hood, stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Bush replaced these funds with the US Government IOU's.

Those IOU's are representation of cash available to pay the Baby Boomers once they start retiring. When do they start retiring? In 3 years beginning 2008. The Baby Boomers will start cashing in those US Treasury Bonds or IOUs. Problem is, there is no money to pay back the IOUs.

You see the Treasury is running in the Red, we do not have the money to finance all of the Expenses of the US Government NOW! How will Bush find the funds to start paying off the Baby Boomers IOUs? By issuing more IOUs to someone else!

Think of it this way. You are a bank and depositors make monthly deposits for safe keeping. The bank however is not making enough money to pay it's bills, so it dips into the deposits and 'borrows' money with unsecured IOUs saying it will pay back the loans with interest once things turn around. Buts things do not turn around, they only get worse. To not pay the bills would bring ruin to the bank, so the bank 'borrows' even more money from the depositors! Now a vicious cycle has begun. Outwardly all is well, however one day the depositors begin to no longer make deposits, but begin to withdraw their funds with interest! Now the Bank faces not only a short fall to pay existing Bills because fewer funds are coming in, but also the amount going out has increased. The only way to make ends meet is to issue additional unsecured IOUs to individuals outside the Bank. As more people retire the greater the escalating unsecured IOUs grow. This is the house of cards Bush has built.

How has this happened?

Bush has not vetoed one single spending bill.

Bush has given tax cuts in a time history has shown taxes should be raised. We are at war, and in every instance of war in the past Presidents understood the importance of keeping the War Chest full to finance the Troops.

Believe it or not the Countries financing the American War on terrorism are the Chinese, the French, The Germans, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and many other countries that voted against the invasion of Iraq. How? They are buying the US Government Bonds that Bush is issuing to pay for the Deficit that Social Security is now financing.

Talk about hat in hand!

Bush needs to change Social Security because under the guise of reform Bush can 'borrow' funds to hide the impending financial incompetence of this Administration. If Bush does not 'reform' Social Security BEFORE 2008 the US citizens will see the Republican incompetence NAKED in it's raw ugly epochal squandering. Bush had everything a President could ask for, A strong economy, A strong low unemployment rate, strong GDP growth, A hard won Surplus. With this Bush could have paid BACK Social Security and the unfunded liability of Medicare, yet another 2008 issue that had a dirty sloppy overpriced band aide applied. Instead Bush has placed this the US on the slippery slope to financial ruin.

Bush needs to fix the real problem, The National Deficit and The National Debt. Bush needs to allow the ill advised tax cuts to sunset. If Bush does not deal with the real issue, Republicans being fiscally irresponsible, not only will Bush and the Republican Party go down in flames but so will the US dollar, the US standard of living, the US economy and the US.

OK now how do we solve this?

Social Security needs to be tweaked, but it is not broken.

For Social Security to continue paying out benefits all that needs to be done is this.

Increase the SS payroll deduction by 1/2 to 1%.

Increase the annual SS payroll deduction cutoff to $120,000.

Means test payout's to retirees.

Gradually increase the retirement age to 70.

Allow new workers entering the labor market to have the OPTION of having additional funds taken out of their payroll checks to be applied to the Private Accounts.

Investments in the Private Accounts are limited to these options:
Money Market
US Treasuries
INDU index fund
SPY index fund
QQQQ index fund
Gold/Silver/Platinum

All or any option in combination will keep SS solvent for decades to come. As it stands SS will continue for decades without and changes.

Time will tell all the Truth.

VT

Virtual Truth
Sean Lewis

VirtualTruth@aol.com
Founder Open Debate Forum
OpenDebateForum@groups.aol.com

We are Americans first. Not black or white, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. We are Americans first. Until this fact is understood we will be a nation divided and ineffective. We need to forget our differences and stop blaming each other for the errors of the past. We need to be non partisan about the future of this country. Our greatest enemy is from within. We have turned upon each other. . We need to change our old way of business as usual and be united for the common good. Which is, we are all Americans first.