Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Bi-partisan social security convened now to deal with the problem

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 01:52 PM
Original message
A Bi-partisan social security convened now to deal with the problem
would only benefit the Conservative approach to "fixing" social security...

The idea, from what I understand, is to make a committee with EQUAL representation of the Democrats and republicans...

The group would function like the base closing committee that was successful in getting rid of a lot of unnecessary military bases by letting the congressperson from a district say to his people, don't blame me, the committee took it away....

The problem with this is that the committee would be formed now and would not really reflect the political make-up of the country...

Poll after poll says the people are tilting toward the left...

In realigning election numbers...

So why should those of us in the center and on the left allow conservative to have more say in how a program that benefits our core constituency than we do...

Proportionally speaking, of course...

It's bull shit and a political gimmick that will end up destroying one of the only things about the federal government that actually works...

You can tell by the way they attack SS right now...

They say that SS is close to 50% of the budget...

Yea, but if you look at the other side of that equation and say that SS is running a surplus and as of 2005, the trust fund took in $ 697 Billion and sent out $ 523 Billion...

In other words, the extra cash brought in through SSI equals about nine or so months payments for the Iraqi War...

Fuck this...

Don't let this happen or the only thing good happening now will be taken away from us and we will have no safety net what so ever...

Do you really want Lindsey Grahman and Trent Lott having the same say as Sherrod Brown and Russ Feingold...

Cause is you do, let them make this uber-committee a reality...

And kiss whatevers left of this country good bye...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Be sure to check out this post....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. and this one....Conrad says EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE
Edited on Mon Oct-29-07 02:11 PM by antigop
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. This bi-partisan committee...
Edited on Mon Oct-29-07 02:37 PM by CaliforniaPeggy
Sounds like a Republican idea...

In other over-simplified words, a bad idea...

But you could argue that it's important to have it be bi-partisan...

Cause that's only fair, right?

Nope.

The country is tilting left, but for the republicans to admit that in the formation of this committee would be political suicide...

It is really freaking important to keep Social Security out of the Republican hands...

The safety net will indeed vanish if they get their way on it...

Just another stab at our once proud country...

K&R

Edit for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why? Because many Democrats won't won't for something this controversial unless
there is bipartisan support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. And they way they plan on voting right after the 2008 election...
It's taking the politics out of a political decision...

Who represent the people who are getting and paying for SSI...

None of those fuckers in DC are paying a dime into SSI...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Who doesn't pay into SSI?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Federal and state employees...
The House and Senate Members...

The Administration...

Pretty much everyone involved with government...

And so are we going to let them decide what is good for the rest of us...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Members of Congress pay into Social Security
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Well I was wrong on the congresspeope, I guess...
But I do know that almost no one working for state and local governments pay into Social Security...

They pay into medicare...

They accept lower pay for a better pension...

In 2004, there were over 18 million people working for state and local governements and some $ 56 billion was exclused from Social Security...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I had to pay in when I was a federal employee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Since I mostly deal with state and local government workers
in my practice as an accountant, I did not know that the law had changed...

I should have know that but I didn't...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R...an additional 1 Trillion in excess payments under Bush
Money was spent on the war, money was spent on tax cuts...too bad :(

2 Trillion in total spent on other programs, but it will be SS crisis in 2017 and the other spending will not be mentioned.


Yearly Trust Fund Data

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds, 1957-2006

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

Total receipts
Total expenditures
Net increase during year
Assets at end of year
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
13. Jeremy Rifkin's book The End of Work shows that ...
Edited on Mon Oct-29-07 09:50 PM by EVDebs
"As it turns out, pension funds, now (1995) worth more than $5 trillion in the United States alone, have served as a forced savings pool that has financed capital investments for more than 40 years. In 1992, pension funds accounted for 74% of net individual savings, more than one-third of all corporate equities and nearly 40% of all corporate bonds. Pension assets exceed the assets of commercial banks and make up nearly one-third of the total financial assets of the U.S. economy. In 1993, pension funds made new investments of between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion. If companies continue to marginalize their work forces and let large numbers of employees go, the capitalist system will slowly collapse on itself as it is drained of the pension funds necessary for new capital investments.

http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/art/rifkin02.htm

Well, for the past 12 years, companies HAVE continued marginalizing their work forces with mass layoffs and dropping both healthcare and pension benefits.

Saving social security will require the realization by the richest one and a half percent, Bush's base, that their financial survival --along with that of the current capitalist system--will require that they pay more into that financial asset fund in order to keep the entire system from collapsing on itself.

The cap of $97,500 on SS taxation being removed can save the system; the Medicare for all that is coming, and cannot be denied, will also require more money along with the NON-PROFIT status of hospitals and participants...the Third Sector that Rifkin promotes in his writings. This is what has 'saved' capitalism at every turn in the past. It will do so again.

David Lindorff's article,

A New Campaign of Lies
The Assault on Social Security
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff02032005.html

shows us that..."Tomorrow's senior lobby won't feel constrained by current law, which makes workers foot half the bill (we're talking about their own kids, after all!). We can thus expect to see more of the tax burden shifted onto employers. We can also expect to see future Congresses pressured into passing reforms that will remove the income cap on the Social Securities tax. (And here's something the president has not told people: if the cap on income subject to Social Security taxation, currently set at $90,000 in wages, were eliminated so all income was subject to the tax, there would be no shortfall in the trust fund--not in 2042, not in 2075, never.) We can also expect to see private pensions made fully portable, so that employers can't pocket years of contributions every time they let go workers before they are "vested." As well, we can probably also expect to see a movement to expand Medicare from a niggardly program that only barely covers the medical care of the elderly, to a full-fledged national healthcare program that covers everyone."

The corporate world is scared, but these are problems they've gambled on by offshoring jobs to countries without pension or healthcare systems, see the July 2004 article The Benefits Trap,

The Benefits Trap
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_29/b3892001_mz001.htm

"Why are retirees being left out in the cold? An unsavory brew of factors have come together to put stress on the retirement system like never before. First, there's the simple fact that Americans are living longer in retirement, and that costs more. Next come internal corporate issues, including soaring health-care costs and long-term underfunding of pension promises. Perhaps most important, in the global economy, long-established U.S. companies are competing against younger rivals here and abroad that pay little or nothing toward their workers' retirement, giving the older companies a huge incentive to dump their plans. "

They've offshored jobs to their 'competition', ahem, their own corporate subsidiaries, and then said to the US workers "we can't compete with those lower wage workers so we're dropping your pension and healthcare benefits". The management and shareholders all make out well. But it can't last and they know it.

We know it too and now we're getting wise to the game.

(As an aside, kudos to Jeremy Rifkin as one of the instigators of the Winter Soldier investigations during the Vietnam war)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. The colapse of the private pension funds are why we can't even
consider this uber-committee crap...

None of them will be effected...

None of their kids will be effected....

No one they know will be effected...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. This is WHY D.U. is SOOOOOOOO important
They will be affected as it their stupid policies effects on the economy worldwide begin to spiral downward. The huge debts they are racking up in Iraq WILL crowd out sane societal needs. This is proof there is a devil whispering into these fools ears telling them they can get away from it all protected within their gated communities.

No such luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
15. Should be a prerequisite that one actually wants to SAVE Social Security
Republicans have shown their cards on that score, however. Don't help them or give them credibility if they are going to use it to undermine Social Security.

Josh Marshall taught SOME of us well.
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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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