Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Thompson: Reduce future retiree benefits

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 03:31 AM
Original message
Thompson: Reduce future retiree benefits
Source: ap




Thompson: Reduce future retiree benefits

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
1 hour, 34 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson on Friday proposed reducing benefits promised to future retirees and establishing a system of voluntary personal retirement accounts under Social Security to help shore up the program's finances.





"If somebody's got a better idea let them put it on the table," said the former Tennessee senator in a challenge to fellow Republicans as well as Democrats vying for the White House in 2008.

President Bush proposed roughly similar changes three years ago, but they proved so controversial that they never came to a vote in either house of the Republican-controlled Congress.

Thompson's proposal steered clear of higher payroll taxes, which many Democrats favor. Nor did he suggest raising the retirement age, another possible way to prolong the life of Social Security.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071110/ap_on_el_pr/thompson_social_security;_ylt=AodyA9ZcZAntSi_1V7nts6GtOrgF





well, as long as it does NOT affect them (the now), people just might vote for it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. What a fucking idiot!! He can kiss his base goodbye. Clearly, he doesn't WANT to run.
He's tired, or something.

Who the fuck says that BEFORE an election? Even BushCo presented privitization as an "alternative"--as though all these fucking financial geniuses could invest their SS money and get BIG returns! Oi vey....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. I can think of several better ideas.
But for the life of me I just can't think of anything worse. What a tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. Boy, THERE'S a winning plan!!!! What an AH! I guess he wan't
paying any attention to the public response when Shrub was pushing that as part of HIS plan, huh?

Well, if this gets any coverage, we don't have to worry about Freddie being the nominee!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 04:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. What do you know, NIxon was right.
Fred is a new kind of stupid. :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 05:44 AM
Response to Original message
5. The republican WAR against the elderly, the poor and the vulnerable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
6. Or, perhaps...
the Republicans could stop using the Social Security Trust Fund as their personal ATM every time they want to give another round of tax cuts to the rich? :shrug: Just a suggestion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Naturyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. He just jumped the shark. Good riddance. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
8. Investments... Yea. Riiiiight...
DJ up a thousand points, DOWN a thousand 'n a half two months later...

And the way they print dollurs, SOUTH seems the only direction forward!

Let this idjiut be the RW nominee... :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-11-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
30. This is stupid idea. What the hell do you mean "reduce future benefits promised?"
Screw that. Having said that, I've saved for retirement for 35 years in the stock market and done extremely well. Made more than I could have anywhere else. Now lately I've lost some money but it will go up again. I'll be pulling it out soon anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
9. He needs to add euthenasia to his clever plan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
10. Thompson just placed the political gun to his head
and pulled the trigger. Nice move, Phred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
11. Thompson just had his Mondale Moment when the latter in 1984 said he'd
raise taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
12. He's helpless here, a victim of two tenets of Republican dogma.
1. There's a Social Security crisis.
2. You can't raise tax rates, ever.

Either one of these points, in isolation, can cause a politician to act like an idiot. Try to hold onto both of them simultaneously, and it's not an act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
13. "Let them eat cat food . . ." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
14. Social Security payments have already been reduced.
Because our unethical gubermint miscalculates inflation (for example by excluding energy and food, just don't move or eat and you'll be fine). The gubermint's inflation rate is what is used to calculate Social Security payments. If the real inflation rate were used, Social Security payments would be almost 70% higher.

http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=343

But stealing from widows, orphans and the disabled is sooo much more preferable than making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes. What's the good of being rich if you can't make the poor suffer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
15. Good lord. He's becoming Strother's Martin character in "Cool Hand Luke"
It's as if his new campaign theme is, "Call me the Captain".

MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
16. Ok dumbfuck, raise the cap to 125K, END OF PROBLEM!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
17. So many solutions in search of a problem
Social Security is solvent and sound, unless you're going to say that the federal government will not guarantee its debt, and the Constitution says that's not possible.

Odd how all these overrich fatcats have their wealth tied up in government-issued bonds, but Social Security is at risk for being backed by the exact same instruments. If the government's guarantee is good enough for their investment, why isn't it good enough for mine? And considering that Social Security is projected to continue to bring in more money than it pays out for another 40 years or more, why is Social Security at risk but some other part of the federal budget (say our bloated defense spending) isn't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
18. Fred really does not want to be Preznit. He's desperately trying to tell us that, every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-11-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell
anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
19. "If somebody's got a better idea let them put it on the table,"
Okay, how about impeachment. I mean, it's a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
20. FINE. Reduce them - then put HIM and every other member of Congress, the Senate...
...AND the President ON those benefits when they retire with NO OTHER financial means of support or other retirement funds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
21. It is official: the class war has become a hot war.
It is about time to raise the red flag and form the barricades by my own estimation. I reckon my old medium Crimson Tide tee shirt that no longer fits would make a passable flag, I could rip out the seams and hasten a banner if necessary. I don't think the elephant should be too distracting.

Remember, always, that Bayh calls the Democratic portion of the Democratic Party the "loony left." I say that if one straddles the center line too often they run in danger of being plowed down by traffic coming in both directions.

John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich are cited as promoting "class warfare," and I say "good." It is past time for a frontal assault against the Investor Class, since we outnumber them about 99:1.

Whoever would have thunk that a nominally sane person could run for POTUSA and dare attack FDR's most sacred cow? Methinks that Mr. Thompson, that most Honorable gentleman from Tennessee is a dolt. To put it bluntly, "It ain't gonna play at Mule Day in Columbia, Fred, or in Peoria."

Frankly I am embarrassed he was born one county away from me and attended my undergrad alma mater! But I suppose that his Tennessee Valley roots rapidly dissolved once he became a big wig in DC and then NYC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
22. Here's a better idea, Mr. Thompson
Stop spending so much money on wars, and use that money to guarantee the security of your fellow citizens in their old age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
23. Lets do this
Put all the government on min wage with no healthcare , Thompson can hang out at Reagans grave and watch for the ghost to rise .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-11-07 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
24. Freddy just fried himself on the third rail of American politics.
Eeewww!

Smells like burnt Aqua Velva and prunes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-11-07 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
25. I already expect this..
My planning assumes little or nothing from SS. I assume that I have to save for my own retirement, so I am doing everything I can do on that front. I think that whoever is in charge will cut benefits since the time will come when 2 workers won't be able to support one retiree.

I really wonder about countries like China that have HUGE demographic bulge. How will they be able to take care of their elderly after years of the one child policy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-11-07 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Me too. I realized years and years ago that SS probably
wouldn't be around long and didn't want to rely on it. I am getting it which shocks the hell out of me, but I still don't rely on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ryanmuegge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-11-07 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
26. Hey, at least he's honest.
Choices will have to be made, and it's good to hear someone admit that in this day of, "yeah, we can continue to spend more than the rest of the world combined on 'defense' (empire) and still have all of these retirement benefit programs at their current levels WITHOUT raising taxes." What about Medicare, though?! That's the real fucking fiscal crisis.

Thompson's clearly an idiot, though, and he, like all Republicans, really just want to destroy both Medicare and Social Security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-11-07 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. What Choices? This is based a a very bias report
I will NOT cite the source, I have to go to bed, so I do not have time to look for it but it is on the net, but the so called Social Security crisis is a made up crisis. It is made up by running Social Security numbers assuming the worse case for the economy and compare that to a private program based on the best case for the Economy. Yes, if we assume that the economy will do worse then it has since 1980 (and much worse NOT a little bit worse) Social Security is in real problems. The problem is so would any private program in the same economy.

Republicans then compare this worse case scenario for Social Security with a best case scenario for a private plan. In such a comparison the Private Plan is better, but if we use the same economic assumption as use in the Social Security estimate, the private plan is WORSE then Social Security. Thus this is in reality a non-problem EXCEPT if the Economy tanks for the next 50 years. If the economy does tank, we have to do radical changes to Social Security, but that same is true if you had private retirement plan, you will have to do similar if not the same radical changes. Simply put Social Security is NOT in Danger, if Social Security taxes are still collected and applied to Social Security. What danger possible for Social Security is the same danger any private plan will also have to deal with,

Now there is a possibility of a problem for Social Security starting in about 2012, that is about when Social Security Taxes collected each year is less than what Social Security is to pay out. Social Security then has to go to the Treasury and ask the Treasury to start returning all the excess Social Security Taxes collected since 1982. The Treasury will have to go to Congress and ask Congress to increase Income Taxes to pay back the Social Security taxes collected but already spent. In many ways this is what the GOP see and fears. A demand to increase Income Taxes to pay for things the GOP has paid for with Social Security Taxes since Reagan. This is the only way to pay back to Social Security the taxes collected and NOT spent on Social Security since 1982. This issue is NOT even being discussed by either party, but the GOP is lying the Ground work to say it is a Social Security Problem NOT an income tax problem. The Democrats are avoiding the issue but it will be a larger and larger issue as this century goes on. Someday the Treasury will have to repay to Social Security the Taxes paid, have Congress borrow the money to pay Social Security back, have Congress raise Income Taxes to pay back Social Security, or have Congress declare the money spent and Social Security will not get the money back (What I believe the GOP wants to do, but it would be political Suicide, but the GOP is setting up a frame work to do just that, declare the money spent and NOT returnable to Social Security).

Now, many economist do mention the problem with Medicare, but try NOT to combine it with the problem of Health Insurance. At the present time, Social Security is barely collecting enough taxes reserved to pay Medicare (The Social Security Taxes are in really two taxes, a tax for Social Security Retirement and a tax to pay for Social Security Medical Care). Within 1-2 years that will change, i.e. Medicare will need more money then the tax to pay for Medicare brings in. The larger Social Security Tax for retirement can be used to over this over for a few years (And that is expected) but it still is an issue that will have to be addressed. I.e. Raising Taxes to pay for Medicare. Another issue the GOP want to spin to be a Social Security problem NOT a problem involving National Health Insurance or even Income Taxation.

This is all the fault of the Baby Boomers. They paid higher then needed Social Security since 1982 and this year start to turn 62 and can apply for early Social Security. The number of baby boomers over age 62 will raise for the next 11 years and then start a slow decline for Seven more years and then you have a substantial drop. This is do to how baby boomers were born. The boom started in 1947, peaked in 1957 and ended in 1964 (they was a substantial drop off in Births between 1964 and 1965, so the baby boom was considered over by 1964).

Now not all Baby boomers will wait till AFTER they turn 65 before they retire and get full retirement benefits. Many will take early retirement at age 62 (Which for people born after 1960 will mean a 30% drop in monthly payments do to the Early Retirement). The 1982 changes in Social Security law slowly raise the full retirement age starting with people who were born in 1938. For Details see the following Site:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

People born in 1960 must wait till they are 67 before they can retire and get their full retirement rate. The GOP wants to ignore the fact that these Baby Boomers put more in Social Security since 1982, then was spent and that money was spent on GOP projects including the end of the Cold War. The GOP really want to end Social Security for then they do NOT have to vote to increase Income taxes to pay back Social Security. If the baby boomers would NOT be looking forward to retire at 62-67, there would be no crisis. The GOP believe low income people should work till they drop. Thus the need to increase Income taxes to pay back Social Security is all the fault of the Baby Boomers, if they would just NOT retire there would be no need to raise Income Taxes. And this is what the GOP is looking at, a demand that Social Security be paid to the Boomers even if that means raising Income Taxes. The GOP does NOT want any Income Tax increase, but you have to do that to pay back Social Security. The GOP is hoping by calling this a Social Security problem NOT a taxation problem they can ride it out and maybe even get re-elected.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-11-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Very good analogy. Not to mention that a great deal of us
have already "worked until we dropped" and are presently "dropping" and won't make it to 67 by a long shot. I won't. I'm 53 and on social security disability, private disability and my savings. I've had stage four cancer, fibromyalgia, arthritis, and the chance that I would live to 67 are nill and none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-11-07 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
27. Yeah, VOTE REPUBLIC!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!

Only if you're one of the 36% stupidest MFers in the USSA who love to vote against their own best interests!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-11-07 04:10 AM
Response to Original message
29. Define "future", Fred
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC