Apparent "talking point" on Social Security now blasting..

I saw 2 TV ads and heard three common-taters in the past two days ask. "Where's the Democrats Plan?" and from our side I hear a kind of limp "social securtiy is the plan".

Probably the simplest, most easy to understand and hardest to demonize would be to raise the cap on income that can be 'hit up' for the deduction. Why on Earth should income over $90K per year not be made part of the contributions? Why should there be any cap at all?

said last week he doesn't have a plan, it doesn't then become the Dems job to come up with one. BUSH is the one pushing it, the answer to this is "When Bush gets one, then the Dems can answer it, otherwise Social Security as the INSURANCE NOT INVESTMENT program that honors our seniors is the plan, which may need some tuning up"

The only thing the King throws out are his talking points. Social Security is gonna go broke, pause stupid look pause. I mean if we don't fix it/ real meaning dismantle it it's gonna go broke. The blacks die early they get cheated, stupid look again on the Kings face, did I really say that pause stupid look again.
I mean the Dem's don't have to do anything just let them talk themselves into the ground this strategy is working just fine.

And its worked great and will continue to work as long as we dont let the republicans "fix" it.

WHERE'S HIS FUCKING PLAN? He goes first.

something one would think should be obvious to everyone

SS should be tweaked. Eliminate the cap on earnings. That's all there is too it.

:kick:

I don't trust Wall Street with my future!

Short, simple, sweet..."consider it "tweaked".
AND
Welcome to DU!:toast:

:kick:

:)

1) Bush hasn't presented ANYTHING yet. Please Mr Bush WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING PLAN?
2) We have a plan it is called Social Security and keep your criminal corporatist hands off of it.

. . . is that that "capped" amount of annual wages is the amount that high income earners are assumed to have made when calculating Social Security benefits. A person's Social Security benefits are derived through a somewhat complicated formula intended to result in a certain percentage (much less than 100%, certainly) of that person's lifetime average monthly being "replaced" by benefit payments upon retirement.

Thus, a person making, say, $200,000 in 2005 will only pay Social Security payroll taxes on $90,000. At the same time, when that person's Social Security benefits are being calculated when that person has retired and applied for benefits, the benefit formula that will be employed (under current law, that is) will give that person "credit," as it were for having only made $90,000, not $200,000, in 2005. A person who earned high wages (above the "cap") over the course of his working life will thereby have his Social Security benefits limited accordingly.

The article about it did not say this, but this person who was there posted this here:

"He told bush to stop trying to dismantle Social Security! He said.. "stop asking the Dem's for our plan.. we have a plan.. IT'S CALLED SOCIAL SECURITY!""

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1337276&mesg_id=1338823

My belief is that they want us to present a "plan" so they can tear it down and blame us for it all.

because their goal is simply to get the dems to aknowledge the crisis. They wont mind compromising, its just like welfare, the victory wasnt the welfare reform so much as getting the nation to give up on welfare.

The larger goal is to convince Americans that liberalism is a failure.

If Democrats responded with ANY sane alternative to the magical arithmetic of "privatization", here's what the Republicans would blanket the media with, instead of the current ad:

"Pay more? Work longer? Get less?! That's all the Democrats are offering you. Call your Representatives and Senators and tell them you want them to support the President's plan to save Social Security, NOW!"

The Reid/Pelosi say-nothing strategy is working fine, for now. Desperate to avoid a humiliating defeat on Social Security, there is a new WH willingness to APPEAR open to any plan to solve the non-existent "crisis" , even one that would abandon privatization. That slippage from the hard line is making the Wall Street wing of the party furious at Rove and Dubya. They've even attacked the WH in print; see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1682061 .

If they are going to index for inflation, they should index as well for life expectancy.

In other words, a gentle tweak in the maximum benefit retirement age as life expectancies increase would seem to be in order.

There is an intended re-definition of SS as a "retirement" program instead of an insurance pool. If the Bush cabal really wants to encourage individual retirement savings they should do it through the existing IRA/Keogh structure instead of SS.

On another note, the false "immediate" crisis is a classic tactic of the elites, (who represent only the ideology of unchecked power), to whip the populace into a frenzy while the real dirty work is going on. The recent TS 24/7 bloviating is a classic mega-distraction.

a chance to fuck with it, if anything needs to be done, there is plenty of time to do it after this fuckstick* is gone.