Dems agree on need to overhaul Social Security

President Bush's proposal to change Social Security by creating retirement investment accounts for younger workers would shatter the New Deal-era program and burden future generations with debt, a Michigan congressman said.

"This would have dire consequences including major borrowing and massive benefit cuts. It would mean the dismantling of Social Security as we know it," Rep. Sandy Levin said Saturday in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have campaigned to build support for an overhaul, which includes the creation of the private accounts for younger workers. At appearances around the nation, they have warned that with millions of baby boomers approaching retirement, Social Security will be jeopardized for future generations.

On Wednesday, the trustees who oversee the government retirement program said Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes in 2017. They estimated the program could deplete its trust accounts by 2041.

http://adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=11805299&ps=1017&srce=news_class&action=1

Let the rich pay a fairer share and the disbursement shortfalls go away. Problem solved.

I think the government should make 401K and IRA participation MANDATORY. A law should be enacted to ensure that if you don't participate, you won't be able to to take deductions on your federal taxes for dependents or mortgage payments. I think the government should also do some matching in the case of taxpayers that make under a certain amount.
I was lucky, in that I've participated in a 401K plan for 24 years now. I'd hate to think of my future without that nest egg.

On Wednesday, the trustees who oversee the government retirement program said Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes in 2017. They estimated the program could deplete its trust accounts by 2041.

Levin, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee, said his constituents have raised concerns about the changes. Those nearing retirement have "doubts that diverting nearly $5 trillion over 20 years would not impact their Social Security."

For younger workers, Levin said, the overhaul "saddles future generations with massive debt and requires major benefit cuts for everyone, even for those who do not choose a private account."

Levin said Democrats were "ready and willing" to start work on a bipartisan plan to consider the challenges that Social Security will face in the future.

"The president's proposals to divert Social Security money to private accounts move us in the wrong direction," Levin said. "They are a roadblock _ standing in the way of bipartisan efforts to strengthen this vital program for all future generations."

made there.....seems quite misleading to me.
WTF?

instead of that misleading headline.
they do agree on that, do they not?

They agree there is a problem, that the president's ideas are going to cause more problems and they are "ready and willing" to work in a bipartisan effort to fix it. I would say they are agreeing that Social Security needs to be fixed.

i don't see any agreement to an overhaul. the headline says Dem PANS it. misleading, and you know it.

talking about.

It was my understanding that there was no problem at all with Social Security; that this was a made-up crisis.

Now, the Social Security Adminstration agrees that the progam will be bankrupt and this guy is saying they are "ready and willing" to fix it.

I know what the headline reads but this is not what the article is saying.

It's saying, Social Security does need repaired.

That Bush's plan is terrible

That the Dems want to work in a bipartisan effort to fix it.

On this board, I hear

No problem
No problem
No problem

Now the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee says they are "ready and willing" to start work on a bipartisan plan to consider the challenges that Social Security will face in the future. What does this mean to you?

Is this the no problem, I keep hearing? I watched as the senate booed the Shrub during his State of the Union. I read Krugman. I read countless posts here and other places and they all say the same thing. No Problem. Why would Democrats be ready and willing to fix a problem that doesn't exist? The only thing this article is panning is the privatization of the accounts, not the need for a repair, overhaul whatever.

There is plenty of time to work out methods of addressing any future problems. Bush* is making it an immediate crisis. Nothing is perfect.. It will need fine tuning for it's entire existence. Everything does...

you are really talikng black and white and not picking up on the nuances, which led you to somehow misspeak that an overhaul is supported by Dems. That's their trap.
bush has been stealing from SS to plug his budget.
at the same time, he has been exaggerating and predicting the demise of SS for 15+ years, as have the neo cons. when you hear "no problem" i read, again and again, problem has been exagerrated.
at the same time he is trying to OVERHAUL (dismantle) it by making it less social, and less secure w/ the stock market tie ins and privatization.
Dems are in principal against this overhaul. this is not the same as saying SS doesn't need help. Honestly, any Dem will tell you, Medicare/ Medicade is in much worse shape. But bush has already given away all he could to big pharma, so he ain't interested.
"supporting the overhaul" was grossly inaccurate.

Pure bullshit.

The actual headline of your linked article is "Democrat Pans Social Security Overhaul".

That's a pretty misleading subject line, considering that headline and the fact that many Democrats do not "agree on need to overhaul Social Security".

The party line was NO PROBLEM - Now they agree that there is a problem and they are going to do something about it. The debate only hinges on privatized accounts.

"Levin said Democrats were "ready and willing" to start work on a bipartisan plan to consider the challenges that Social Security will face in the future."

you ignore the fact that you you twisted the headline, which was more accurate, into a RW talking point. don't be surprised people take issue that you've done what Faux news does every day.

to me.

When I read that democrats PAN social security, I was expecting defiance and criticism, not an offer to repair a problem that doesn't exist.

i think you just need to read and quote a bit more carefully. you left out the word overhaul.
there's no support for an overhaul. getting the point yet?

Why did you do that (change both the headline AND misrepresent the context of the article)? Why did you manipulate in such a way? What is your motivation in doing so?

Why would you "creatively" malign the position of the Democrats?

Why?

Why?

Me and my freind Pinky have devised a scheme to...

You guessed it...

Take over the world.

And isn't agreeing there's a crisis. Dems have never said there wasn't a problem, only that it wasn't the crisis Bush is saying and that it only needs minor tweaks to make it solvent.

I tell them there is no problem with Social Security because that is what has been peddled here. I tell them this is a made up crisis. Now there is a Dem Congressman that is saying it is once again in need of repair.

Now;
"On Wednesday, the trustees who oversee the government retirement program said Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes in 2017. They estimated the program could deplete its trust accounts by 2041."

So what do I say now. Oh, I was wrong, there is a problem but Bush has the wrong plan? To my knowledge, he hasn't offered a plan other than incorporating private accounts into any repair needed.

What are the minor tweaks that are needed to repair it? What is our plan to fix it. I don't like Bushies plan whatever it is, that's because I don't trust him at all. I don't care what plan he comes up with, I'll oppose it because of who offered it. What I want to know is, do we have an impending crisis?

A bankrupt system seems like an impending crisis to me. By 2041, I will be retiring and I am not wealthy. I have very little put away because the economy now saps everything I make and then some. Explain to me, how sharp denial turns into a willingness to discuss a problem.

If I seemed to have twisted the facts, it was only because the article was unexpected. I expected to see criticism as the word "pan" would indicate. There was panning but there was also an agreement that a problem exists. If that problem is a bankrupt system by 2041, I think this is a crisis. It was a crisis I was unaware of until now.

I was looking for talking points against the need for reforming a good system. Now, I understand that the system will go bankrupt. In stead of attacking me as a right wing extremist, please explain how the true picture we are looking at. You have to understand my confusion.

(there's a cap over 90K, everybody wealthy pays the same) would do it. but the repugs don't want to hear it. and they don't want to stop borrowing from the SS account. god knows they're not going to want to pay it back anytime soon.

90K is not that much money. With gas at over 2.15 a gallon, milk at 3.20 a gallon and a heating bill at $350 a month. A middle class family needs to bring in at least 60-70k just to even have a retirement. 90K isn't wealthy, it's upper middle-class but not wealthy.

When was this 90k cap established, has there been any adjustments (increases/decreases) in this number and would raising the cap constitute raising taxes. Is raising the cap an option that the Republicans could safely implement without damaging thier politics?

I understand that people here don't care about damaging the RW polluticians but to solve an issue we need to get behind something that will pass. How can we frame the debate to include raising the cap without making is seem like we are trying to raise taxes? Is there a slogan or catch phrase that is in use like "Equitable Security" or something? How do I talk about this without pushing the fact that the wealthy are getting by without paying thier fair share?

function. it's quite handy. i can see you do want more info, and i don't have time to pull it for you. also, you can let let google be your friend.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05060/464453.stm

the purpose of most of bush's policies is to reward the wealthy. flat tax, getting rid of the estate taxes, helping corporations get over on the consumer and get away with it scot free. is this any suprise?

First, these numbers are made with extremely pessimistic hypothesis (never seen since in modern history) concerning the rate of growth during the next 40 years. If you move the average rate by .5 %, you increase the date by some 10 years and so on.

Secundly, even with these hypothesis, SS would still be able to pay 70 % of what is paid now in 2041 (so not bankrupt), and a lot less with the Bush plan. Very limited corrective measures will allow to improve this question, one of these measures being increasing or getting rid of the ceiling of taxable incomes. Clearly nothing like an overhaul of the system as the GOP would like to see for ideological reasons.

In the meantime, there are much more serious problems to be looked at, such as Medicare or the National Debt, unemployement ... Some (if not all) of these questions have a direct influence on the solvency of SS, but nobody wants to speak about that.

Maybe, just maybe, you might want to look this over, Mike.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503230006

Are they just making this stuff up as they go along? Holy crap! What Mr. Snow said is nothing like what this article states. I can't believe I can still get suckered by the media.

To clarify,

If we make a 3.5% increase the systems fixed forever. If we make a 1.92% increase it's fixed for 75 years. If we raise the cap by x dollars, we don't need to raise the tax at all. Is this correct?

Man, I hate the media.

There ain't no crisis. :toast:

economy (will not be the same as last 75 years). But the whole "put money into stock-market" thing is a big lie. Bush admits it does not help SS. What it helps is put off a slow down in the economy (which Bush has avoided since 2001 via war). It would cause a bubble in the stock market and then - the recession would hit just as a democrat took over the Presidency (all with all the BUSH DEBT).

Say no to KKKKOOKING THE BOOKS! Don't make the consumers pay while the USA elites divest into international & arm markets.

bankrupt SS?

The major problem I have with privatization is that I do not trust corporations to honestly report the finacial stability of thier companies. The Enron, Tyco, Worldcom scandals prove how unreliable stock market investing is. But it is wrong to compare investing to gambling. If this were true, 401K programs and even low yeild CD's would be nothing more than a spin of the roullette wheel.

I also don't see how we could take money out of the system and still maintain solvency, especially since they say it's going bankrupt. That makes no sense to me.

But let's say, we eliminated the 90K cap and by agreeing to do this, we allow voluntary privatization. Could this privatization be federally insured against fraud? I understand that the people who got screwed the worst in the scandals was the people who owned shares of common stock. These common shares were not protected in the bankruptcy; it was only the prefferred stocks that had this protection. Could the issuance of SS stocks be secured against real assests that would be covered against fraud or catastrophic loss?

FUCK THAT. It's a fucking scheme. I will fight to last against their bullshit voluntary privatization, goddamn thieves and miscreants.

Social Security is a GUARANTEE that not ONE senior citizen will starve to death in the United States of America. When your bullshit market based plan can provide that GUARANTEE (i.e., never), I'll be willing to listen to your silly tweaks and misleading headlines. Until then, FUCK THEM.

I was just trying to get more information on how a privatization plan would work

and 2) my headline wasn't misleading. The article was misleading and inaccurate which is in no way my fault. It was written in such a way as to suggest that the Democrats were coming on board with a SS overhaul as long as it did not include privatization.

If you don't want to answer a straight up question then that's fine but your adolescent rants are a bit ridiculous. When a person asks a question from a progressive, it should not be met with derision. This in no way helps our cause. Maybe some people aren't as omniscient as you seem to be and have valid questions. You choose to run them off, that to me is a huge mistake. It borders on stupidity and is self-defeating. So until you can speak with civility and respect an honest desire to discuss a topic, you can take your silly rant and shove it up your ass.

wherever it appears. There's a value in derision. There's a value in withholding civility from genuinely uncivil ideas.

So fuck your silly rant and your dishonest, disguised, and disgusting misdirections.

Maybe I should go back and join my freeper brothers since there's place in the progressive movement for people like me. Maybe I should ask for my donations to Conyers and Boxer back. Maybe I should take down my BushCheated'04 bumpersticker. I was so good at decieving, I even decieved my self. If the progressive movement revolves around people like you, I definitely don't want to be a part of it.

Leave, then.

If you were not being deceptive, then you are a dunce. If the progressive movement includes people like you, we are really and truly doomed.

HELP to solve the problem. It does not even help. Yes many ways to tweak the system. Privatizing SS is not necessary. 401K with deferred taxes is the way to go (if private stocks are where you think investment should be).

In canada the government says: your SS plan will be there but it may not be enough..you all have to take advantage of tax breaks and put an extra $15000 aside (reccommended rate is based on income). And if you save that amount...you don't pay taxes on it.

Bush's suggestion of privatization of part of the actual SS is just an attempt to keep an economic bubble going long enough so that the rich can divest of GE and go into international corporations or military ones. They need that SS money shot into the stock market ... just like a heroin addict needs a speedball.

***holes!

I think that growth will be so much higher in other places in the world and (the efficiencies of corporations) corporations can take you there. So yes to 401K s with tax benefits for making the savings. And a whole other bag of tricks like taking 401K withdrawls, etc so that the wealthy do get part of their 401K but perhaps none of the SS (so that it can be left in the pot for the poor). So many tricks like adjusting half of it to the inflation rate of a basket of goods (which mean you can afford the same fresh food & rent with SS money - just not the new inventions - so no catfood situations... but not the equivalent of the newest toy or dvd player when you or I retired in 40 years).


I do not thing that SS should be one more little diamond in the jewelry box of the very, very priviledged elites. If they need to face a recession now - and the markets have an ajustment to do..and wealth will be lost... that is what it is. Middle class or poor do not get top put off unemployment.

I am most concerned that the elites do not switch and bait (like military industry go contracts for vietnam ... while the population paid for it in stagflation years later. I think enough is known about projecting economic situations into the future that some of that can take place. And it seems that the market investment part of SS has nothing to do with helping SS & everything to do with another present from George W Bush to the wealthy...who will return the favour or perhaps are owed it.

Just some modifications eventually.

Reagan have driven to the brink of insolvency!

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1686140 , especially post #19.

"Zaphod Beeblebrox is a native to Betelgeuse Five and grew up with his semi-cousin, Ford Prefect. He is presently in a relationship with long-suffering Trillian (aka Tricia McMillan).
Zaphod, with more than his fair share of body parts, is badly dressed (recently voted the Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe for the seventh time running), bad mouthed, two-headed, has had an extra arm attached just below his original right one (he claims it improves his ski-boxing) and is the proud owner of the biggest ego in the known universe. Apart from his extra head and third arm, he is otherwise humanoid in appearance.
Zaphod is an adventurer, an ex-confidence trickster, a manic self-publicist, and is also terribly bad at personal relationships. He is thought by many to be completely out to lunch. Lunch is of his favourite activities, as his waking day often seems to revolve around his stomach. He is also the creator of the "Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster", a cocktail so volatile and intoxicating that the effects of drinking more than two is like having your brain smashed into a pulp by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick. It is important to spill as little of this drink as possible, as it will severely damage any surfaces it comes into contact with.
President of the Galaxy and successor to Yooden Vranx, Zaphod's job is not to hold power, but to draw attention away from the real source of it. Thus Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the best Presidents the Galaxy has ever had, having already spent two of his ten years in office in prison for fraud.
Zaphod Beeblebrox is notorious for having run off with the most technologically advanced ship of its kind, the Heart of Gold, (which runs off the Infinite Improbability Drive, meaning that it passes through every single point in the Universe simultaneously) when he was in fact supposed to be launching it on the planet Damogran. Following a few narrow escapes from the Galactic Police, he may still be on the run today. And he probably is.

That's why I liked him. It didn't matter what shitty things he did, he just had a great way of making you feel better about getting anally molested.

raising the cap on wages, but I don't want any Republican anywhere touching the system because they want to break it not fix it.When you wrap your mind around the fact that they will destroy it, it makes it easier to understand.

Also, where is this money going to come from? Higher payroll taxes of course with less in benefits to gain if any in the long run after all the middle men take their share of the pie.

SCREW THEM AND THE ELEPHANT THEY RODE IN ON!

There are two parts to my compromise...

1. Remove the cap on earnings and benefits. Since the payout bendpoints are so progressive, the extra benefits wouldn't amount to anything, but it's more fair than increasing the tax but not the benefit. This is in my opinion fair, but would be hard for Republicans to swallow since it would hurt one of their core constituency groups, the rich.

2. Force all workers into the social security system. Currently, there are millions of workers exempt from contributing into social security. The largest group is most teachers in 12 states including California and Texas. It's supposed to be a universal program. If it's universal, you can't have priviledged employees who can remain outside the system.

The worst offenders are professors, at least in Texas who don't have social security, and can even choose to not have the Teacher Retirement System. Instead they have the completely privatized Optional Retirement Program (ORP).

This change is very fair, but would be hard for the Democratic leaders to swallow as it hits one of their key constituency groups, educators.

I think if these two very fair things were done together, we'd have a bipartisan fix to social security that both sides would agree to.

Opinions?

and how much would benefits increase? Wouldn't a proportional benefit increase negate the revenue from the removal of the cap?

I agree that professors should pay into the system as well. It is supposed to be a universal system. Does this also apply to k-12 teachers? Are they exempt from SS taxes?

If they are, I wouldn't be so keen to force them into the SS system only because we need good teachers. I believe K-12 teachers in state schools should be income tax-exempt. I think this would make it more attractive for people to become teachers and it wouldn't increase the burden on the already strained school systems. I haven't heard of anyone putting this idea forward, I just thought it may solve a few problems.

at these numbers?

including the two biggest population states do not pay social security taxes. Instead they have defined benefit plans usually called something like TRS (Teacher Retirement system). It's a pension system where they pay the same amount in as you or I pay into social security, but they get a much greater benefit, sometimes up to three times as large. One reason for this is they don't have to contribute to help people who collect SSI (disability), or help kids out if a parent dies. Those are obligations they have shirked.

I don't agree with you that techers should be exempt from this universal program or especially federal income taxes. I think workers should be treated the same by the law, not some occupations chosen as priviledged by the government and others not. We could all make our own lists of the most worthy professions, but our lists would all be different.

On social security, no a proportional benefit and tax increase would not negate each other.

The benefit formula is based on bendpoints which are incredibly progressive. For example, a person who only averaged $ 6,000 per year during their lifetime will get a social security benefit of almost the entire $ 6,000 per year. However, a person who averaged $ 24,000 will not get quadruple even though they paid in four times more, but will only get about double from social security. A person who averaged $ 60,000 you would think would get ten times what the $ 6,000 person gets, but it will only be about three times as much. And the difference between the person who averaged $ 60,000 and $ 90,000 is almost nothing. The system gives you almost no credit for money put in at the top, less than 10 % credit.

So, if a person made $ 450,000, and was taxed on the whole amount, he would pay in five times what he's now paying in at $ 90,000, but his benefit would be less than double what it is now.

So, the increased tax and benefits would not even themselves out. It would put billions more in the kitty for all of us.

Back in the 80's, when Reagan appointed a nonpartisan commission to take a look at SS, it was determined that the way to fix it was to increase SS taxes, higher than needed then, to cover the retirement of the babyboomers and make SS solvent indefinetly.

They increased the tax, and we ran a surplus eversince...UNTIL SHRUB DECIDED HIS BUDDIES WANTED THAT $$ BACK NOW!

Whoops...they screwed up, huh?

If he hadn't given all the surplus back to his friends, there wouldn't be a problem!

All of these tired facts keep getting in the way of reality. I must say, I get suckered into believing in the facts as well and then I just start reading the news and I snap back to reality. Where would we be without spin?