Gore Questions Bush Social Security Plan

I thought it would be great to hear our President's words on this issue. He warned us this would happen back in 2000, so lets see what he actually said:

Gore Questions Bush Social Security Plan, Republican Privatization Schemes

Privatization Scheme Could Bankrupt Social Security Trust Fund Entirely By 2023

Del Ray Beach, Fl. - April 7 - Al Gore today highlighted his plan to save and strengthen Social Security until at least 2050 and questioned the effects of George W. Bush’s and Republican privatization schemes. Bush’s tax plan spends the entire non-Social Security surplus -- and exceeds the expected budget surplus by nearly $1 trillion, according to an independent study by Citizens for Tax Justice.

“Democrats had to fight to create Social Security, and there are still those who want to cut it, tear it down or take it away,” Gore said. “For as long as I bear the standard of the Democratic Party, we will save and strengthen Social Security, and not allow it to be weakened or threatened in any way.”

Gore delivered his remarks at a Democratic National Committee forum. Approximately 150 national and local DNC members, local elected officials, and other Democratic activists gathered at the Old School Square Cultural Arts Center to contribute to the Democratic Party platform.

The number of Social Security enrollees is expected to double over the next thirty-five years. Gore would transfer the entire Social Security surplus, $2.2 trillion over ten years, to strengthen Social Security and to pay off the nation’s public debt by 2013. Reducing the public debt would produce significant interest savings. By 2016, these interest savings would be about $250 billion annually. Gore would use these long-term savings to strengthen Social Security until 2050.

Gore criticized Bush for suggesting he would raise the retirement age and supporting the privatization of Social Security through “Personal Savings Accounts.” Bush has not detailed how these accounts would work. Gore noted that if Bush adopted one common approach of diverting two percentage points of the payroll tax into these accounts, and did nothing else, it would steadily drain the Social Security trust fund. Under this privatization scheme, more than $350 billion would be removed from Social Security annually by 2016, while Gore’s plan would add about $250 billion. By 2023, this privatization scheme would completely bankrupt Social Security.

“That’s even before we factor in the nearly trillion-dollar shortfall in the Bush tax plan,” Gore said. “His tax scheme could force him to give away half the Social Security surpluses in special interest tax breaks. The numbers just don’t add up. It’s for Governor Bush to explain exactly what his plan is, what his numbers are, and exactly how they add up.”

Gore Highlights Principles and Plans for Social Security

Notes Disadvantages of Privatization Plans

Portland - May 12 - Speaking to students, parents and grandparents at a community college here, Al Gore today highlighted the principles that guide his approach to Social Security and detailed his plans to preserve and strengthen the retirement program. Gore said that he would make Social Security a top priority, maintain its guaranteed benefit and make the program fairer for women.

"Social Security is a solemn compact between the generations, and it embodies our deepest obligations to one another," said Gore. "Today, because of our sound management of the economy, we have a chance to save and strengthen Social Security, so it is there, not just for seniors, but for their children and grandchildren, too. I have laid out a detailed plan to save Social Security, a plan that is built on fiscal responsibility and debt reduction."

Gore’s plan will keep Social Security solvent through at least 2050 by continuing to balance the budget, paying down the national debt and using the interest saved from debt reduction to shore up the Social Security Trust Fund. Gore supports a guaranteed benefit for Social Security and opposes raising the retirement age to 70. Gore would also raise benefits for widows and eliminate the motherhood penalty that reduces benefits for women who take time off from work to raise their children.

Gore also pointed out the disadvantages of Social Security privatization. Diverting Social Security funds to the stock market could risk taxpayer dollars, bankrupt Social Security, force benefit cuts or increase the retirement age.

"Let’s remember that Social Security is about something far greater than numbers on a spreadsheet or the day’s stock prices," Gore said. "It’s about our fundamental commitment to our parents and children."

Gore was introduced to an audience at Portland Community College by Norma Brown, a 72 year-old retiree who spent much of her career in the Salem, Oregon Public School Library System. Brown spoke about how vital Social Security benefits are to her and her husband John.

Gore: Social Security Must Remain A Fundamental Guarantee Of Retirement Security

Bush Plan Could Cost A Trillion Dollars, Undermine Debt Reduction, Eliminate Guarantee Of Retirement Security, And Result In Massive Government Bail Outs

Ambler - May 15 - Calling Social Security a solemn compact between the generations, Al Gore today called for reforming "Social Security in the right way." Gore detailed his plan to pay down the debt and preserve Social Security's basic guarantee of retirement security. Earlier today, George W. Bush promised to privatize Social Security as President, but provided no specific details. Bush's secret privatization plan could cost a trillion dollars, leave the nation with multi-trillion dollar debts, eliminate the fundamental guarantee of retirement security and force massive government bail outs.

"Our economy is strong today," Gore said. "And if we keep making responsible choices, we can reform Social Security in the right way. We can strengthen Social Security in a way that preserves the fundamental guarantee of retirement security, and also pays down our debt, keeps our economy strong and enables us to meet our other great challenges."

Gore has put forward a plan to keep Social Security solvent through at least 2050. As President, Gore would continue to balance the budget, pay down the national debt and use the interest saved from debt reduction to shore up the Social Security Trust Fund. Gore would also raise benefits for widows and eliminate the motherhood penalty that reduces benefits for women who take time off from work to raise their children. Gore supports a guaranteed benefit for Social Security and opposes raising the retirement age.

In a speech in California today, Bush proposed partially privatizing Social Security. Independent analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities showed the transition costs of privatizing Social Security would be nearly $1 trillion over 10 years. Bush's nearly $2 trillion tax cut, other campaign spending promises and $1 trillion privatization transition costs would leave the nation with trillions of dollars of debt.

Under Bush's privatization plan, individuals could lose some or all their invested money, threatening the basic Social Security guarantee for future retirees. While Bush pledged to guarantee a minimum benefit, the natural fluctuations in the stock market could force massive government bail outs of Social Security during market downturns or for people who make poor investment choices.

"Governor Bush proposes to create a semi-privatized Social Security system that could lead to greater reward for some -- but far greater costs and risks for everybody," Gore said. "I believe we have to maintain Social Security as a bedrock guarantee of retirement security. On top of that foundation, people can and should build more -- saving, investments, IRA's. But you shouldn't have to roll the dice with your basic retirement security, and you should not have to pay for others who do."

And it worked, for some reason. :wtf:

the name is familiar, I just can't place it.

Al Gore is the best statesman this country has. How dare you say "who is Al Gore" as Freepers do. I would be ashamed.

a) ran the third worst campaign in my memory;
b) fell off the planet after the 2000 selection
c) tried to land planetside briefly last year, but couldn't quite make it.

and her noxious music censorship crapola.

for losing, his president made it difficult for him. At least he did fight.

I wouldn't fault Kerry for losing. Walking away. Positively.

greatly and would be happy to see him run in 08 and would gladly vote for him.

I did not support Kerry in the beginning - nor was I a Deaniac. I thought Wes Clark was by far the best candidate. When it became apparent that Kerry was going to be the nominee, I was an "ABB" Kerry supporter.

However, over the course of the campaign I became very impressed with Kerry. I connected with him, identified with him, liked his personality, loved the statesman like dignity with which he spoke. He was a president I would have been genuinely PROUD of, not merely someone I would have been pleased was elected or just happy with his policies.

The media very deliberately blocked this perception of Kerry from coming thru - major network news coverage would have had people believing he was a stiff, arrogant, flip-flopper. Possibly my failure to connect with Gore was due to the fact that in 2000 I was much more reliant on the news networks for information and impressions of candidates.

while watching f911. Al Gore presiding over the theft of the election that he won was a bit too much for me.

Is there any senator who will stand with me? Nope.

I immediately thought of Kerry and wondered why he - or anyone else for that matter - did not stand with those people. I repressed the thoughts until the Kerry concession, at which point I was forced to think about it again.

The explanation that I came to accept for both instances - most significantly for the concession - is that Kerry is both very progressive and not the least bit radical.

By that I mean that ideologically, Kerry's stands on the issues are very progressive. You don't get the label "the #1 liberal in congress" for being a centrist or a moderate. But at the same time, Kerry is not a radical - i.e., he will not do anything destructive to the system or undermine the system to enact change.

Challenging the legitimacy of the election in a serious and aggressive way, and providing evidence that there was widespread, systemic fraud, would have undermined the entire electoral process and the faith of the American people and the world in modern democracy. Conceding to * sucks, but it's not as bad as the can of worms that would have been opened up by the alternative. A bad ruler is preferable to anarchy, as Iraq has taught us.

The progressive vs. radical distinction is essential to avoid an undeserved condemnation of Kerry. Put another way, if Kerry were in charge of the apple cart, the apples would be distributed fairly and evenly in accordance with progressive principles of social justice (he's genuinely progressive)...but if Kerry is not in charge, he may try to gain influence or try to move things his way, but he will not upset the apple cart (he's not a radical).

what was needed in 2000 and again in 2004 (and most likely in 2002, and most likely will be needed in 2006 and 2008) is fearless resolute determined leadership, leadership like we saw in the Ukraine, leadership that is willing to call the people out of their homes, away from their jobs, out into the streets, leadership that has the courage to say NO! NO! YOU MAY NOT STEAL THIS ELECTION! You may bring out your storm troopers, your tanks, your dogs, but WE WILL NOT BE MOVED. It is our country and we are not going away.

Instead we have leaders that refuse to fight because they fear that they may lose.

We need leaders with the wisdom of ghandi, with the voice of king, we need leaders with courage and vision.

I find Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry lacking in all respects.

:hi:

Gore could follow the Nixon pattern: VP Nixon lost close election in 1960, and ran (and won) in 1968. I admire Kerry, he's a good man, but maybe not such a good candidate. But, four years is a long ways away.

We first need to concentrate on taking back the House and Senate in 2006!

to see him speak out, as he has on many subjects over the past 4 years. It's time to hear "LOCKBOX"!

Al Gore understands America better than anyone of my generation.

No one articulated the negative impact on America of the Bushevik-era disasters of 2001-4 better than Al Gore. His Move-on.org speeches were the best speeches given during 2003 and the 2004 campaign.

If Al Gore chooses to run, he has my support, money, and volunteer efforts, and I think his support is much deeper than political pundits would ever admit.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that there were no second acts in America, but he was wrong. America is the Land of Second Acts and I sincerely hope Gore's lands him in the White House in 2009.