Do Democrats need to get an actual plan other than lying to old people about SS?

[A18]

I vote yes

[Moooooo]

Yes.

[KEmperor]

I think they're content to lie to old people.  And the scary part is that I think it might work.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. They're not lying
2. The Republicans  are likely going to instead of really pushing their own plan, are going to wait for a Democratic plan to attack first. The Democrats know this, hence no plan.

The Democrats will respond by a plan that will solve a crisis, something like the deficit, that is actually a crisis, unlike SS.

[The Duke]

1. They're not lying
2. The Republicans  are likely going to instead of really pushing their own plan, are going to wait for a Democratic plan to attack first. The Democrats know this, hence no plan.

The Democrats will respond by a plan that will solve a crisis, something like the deficit, that is actually a crisis, unlike SS.

Yeah, they are lying.

Do you have ANY evidence that we're waiting for a Democrat plan to attack?

If you think these deficits are a crisis, you're nuts.

[Smash255]

Bush is the one that is lying by throwing around the term bankrupt

[danwxman]

*yawn* Obviously, it's Bush using scare tactics and lying about his plans for social security. This could be the downfall of the Republican majority in 2006.

[Moooooo]

*yawn* Obviously, it's Bush using scare tactics and lying about his plans for social security. This could be the downfall of the Republican majority in 2006.

Or it could be the end of the Democratic party.  Personally, I dont see any bill similar to what the President has been preaching getting through the house or senate, but I guess we'll see.

[danwxman]

*yawn* Obviously, it's Bush using scare tactics and lying about his plans for social security. This could be the downfall of the Republican majority in 2006.

Or it could be the end of the Democratic party.  Personally, I dont see any bill similar to what the President has been preachin getting through the house or senate, but I guess we'll see.

It won't. No way, no how.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem is, as far as I can tell from what has been made public,  If you take the Bush plan and remove the part of it that would divert a portion of the OADSI taxes into private accounts, the fiscal problem is still solved by engaging in a switch from indexing benefits to wages to indexing them to prices.   In advertising the private accounts as a fix for Social Security's fiscal problems, Bush is taking the wrong approach to getting a desirable policy in place.

[The Duke]

The problem is, as far as I can tell from what has been made public,  If you take the Bush plan and remove the part of it that would divert a portion of the OADSI taxes into private accounts, the fiscal problem is still solved by engaging in a switch from indexing benefits to wages to indexing them to prices.   In advertising the private accounts as a fix for Social Security's fiscal problems, Bush is taking the wrong approach to getting a desirable policy in place.

Indexing benefits to inflation instead of wages does solve the solvency issue, but it doesn't solve the whole problem, at least as far as I define the problem.  Social Security is not capable of paying out the level of benefits people demand without raising taxes or going into massive deficit.  Indexing benefits to inflation is sufficiently unpopular that I don't think anyone can claim that that satisifies people's demand for benefits.

[??????????]

It's easier to just do nothing about SS.

[opebo]

Aren't some Democrats advocating removing the SS tax cap?  It would work, and would only effect a small percentage of Americans who probably vote Republican anyway. 

[© tweed]

Or it could be the end of the Democratic party.  Personally, I dont see any bill similar to what the President has been preaching getting through the house or senate, but I guess we'll see.

That's pretty much how I feel.  He won't get his bill passed, so it's just wasted time from now until when he decides to compromise.  Fine with me...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Aren't some Democrats advocating removing the SS tax cap?  It would work, and would only effect a small percentage of Americans who probably vote Republican anyway. 

It has a lot of support, something like 2/3rds of Americans support that.

[A18]

And 2/3 of Americans support personal accounts.

Mention the transition costs, and support goes down. Mention the cost of doing nothing, and I'm sure support goes right back to 2/3.

[Smash255]

Aren't some Democrats advocating removing the SS tax cap?  It would work, and would only effect a small percentage of Americans who probably vote Republican anyway. 

It has a lot of support, something like 2/3rds of Americans support that.

I think it has some Republican support as well.   I believe S.C Rewpublican  Senator Lindsey Graham also supports removing the cap.

[Smash255]

And 2/3 of Americans support personal accounts.

Mention the transition costs, and support goes down. Mention the cost of doing nothing, and I'm sure support goes right back to 2/3.

Actually that support was somewhere in the 50's, not 2/3, and the support drops to 40 & under when the transition costs are mentioned and the abolishment of guarenteed benefits.  Most Americans agree that something needs to be done about social security, but most are also against Bush's plan when they know of all the costs and the cuts to guarenteed benefits.  The plan that gets the most support among the public is eliminating the S.S payment cap

[A18]

Any poll that mentions transition costs is a push poll, and is completely meaningless. If you're going to do that, mention the cost of doing nothing.

The support is 67%.

[Smash255]

Any poll that mentions transition costs is a push poll, and is completely meaningless. If you're going to do that, mention the cost of doing nothing.

The support is 67%.

Wrong.  For starters the support is lower than 67%, and you have to include the costs because your only explaining a part of the plan if you don't.  The cost of doing nothing is MUCH less than the cost of this plan.  Regardless the question is not wheter to have privite accounts or do nothing at all.  Most people agree that something needds to be done with social security, however privite accounts is not what most Americans wan't when they know more about the program.  What most Americans want is to remove to 90,000 cap

[A18]

Wrong. The number is 67%. I posted the poll; go find it.

I agree that the cost of doing nothing is much higher than the cost of this plan.

If you don't tell the person about the cost of doing nothing, you are misleading them.

[Smash255]

Wrong. The number is 67%. I posted the poll; go find it.

I agree that the cost of doing nothing is much higher than the cost of this plan.

If you don't tell the person about the cost of doing nothing, you are misleading them.

Actually the cost of this plan is much higher (typo)  This plan will cost $2TRILLION +, it won't be even remotley close doing nothing.  Doing nothing still guarentees 78% of benefits after 2042, this plan guarentees NOTHING even for those that stay in the current system because thats where the $$ is coming from to pay for it.  Also the approval is NOT 67%, you must mention the costs.  Its not about doing this plan or doing nothing.  Its about is this the best plan to make, and well the country says an astounding NO especially the more they know about the plan

"As you may know, one idea to address concerns with the Social Security system would allow people who retire in future decades to invest some of their Social Security taxes in the stock market and bonds, but would reduce the guaranteed benefits they get when they retire. Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea?"

Good IDea 40%  Bad Idea 50%  Unsure 5%

Assuming there would be no change in Social Security benefits for those who are now age 55 or older, do you think each of the following would be a good idea or a bad idea to address concerns with the Social Security system? How about . . . ?"

Requiring higher income workers to pay Social Security taxes on ALL of their wages
  Good IDea 67%  Bad Idea 30%  Unsure 3%

"Under the current system people pay Social Security taxes on their income only up to the first $90,000 they earn. Do you support or oppose raising this $90,000 income cap to help bring more money into the Social Security system?"
Support 69%  Oppose 27%  Unsure 4%

Do you support or oppose allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market?"
Support 51%  Oppose 43%  Unsure 6%

Various pols on social security all found on pollingreport

[A18]

Benefit cuts are not part of this plan. They are in current legislation.

Raising the cap = violent revolution.

[Smash255]

Benefit cuts are not part of this plan. They are in current legislation.

Raising the cap = violent revolution.

Yes they are the current plan GUARENTEES ALL benefits to at least 2042 and guarentees 78% of benefits after 2042, Bush's plan doesn't guarentee squat.

Raising the cap has support of almost 70% of the public

[A18]

The personal accounts don't change anything for people who want to stay in the current system. If you want to say it won't be guaranteed for people with the accounts, then that's completely idiotic, because they're not going to lose money in a set of conservative investments.

Why the hell do you keep on bringing up 2042? You realize that's well before today's workers will retire, right?

Because 70% of the public does not have to pay for it. That's one of the situations in which I could actually see the Supreme Court striking down Social Security as unconstitutional.