Skip to comments.105 Democratic Lawmakers Reject Any Social Security Reform
Posted on 09/30/2010 10:34:03 AM PDT by Slyscribe
Democrats calling on the White House to reject Social Security reform may not exactly be news, but this time theyre going beyond the usual, politically motivated allegation that Republicans want to privatize the program and are pushing the White House to preemptively reject even modest proposals such as raising the retirement age or means-testing benefits.
In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., and Dan Maffei, D-N.Y., announced they had a petition signed by 105 members of Congress pledging opposition to any kind of reform.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.investors.com ...
How does continuing to let it go bankrupt save it? I suppose they use the same logic as removing 500 billion from Medicare saves it!!!
Much better if the country goes broke or bankrupt. Wonder where these people left their brains. Guess they never had any.
and how do they propose to save it?
In other words, they want to let Social Security collapse into complete insolvency, and take the rest of the country with it.
That, in a nutshell, ought to be the conservative response.
Social Security is the big dog that began the US welfare state.
Trying to alter any part of it will deliver a stake to the heart of the perpetrator.
But we can do better. At least Mr. Bush tried. These meatheads still think FDR’s still in the Great White Jail.
They won’t save Social Security. They’ll simply keep taxing you and spending the money on other things. Then, when you want to collect Social Security, they’ll tell you there’s no money. Consider that they now owe you $2.5 Trillion dollars that they have borrowed. Do you believe they’ll ever pay it back?
Their opponents in this election cycle ought to run ads charging that these Rats refuse to save Social Security from its inevitable bankruptcy if nothing is done.
By the way, conservative Congressmen and Senators have warned for years about the coming insolvency in the government’s gargantuan Socialist programs. We should give them credit for their common sense, even when their Democrat opponents scorned them for it.
Nothing wrong with Social Security! Here is the government’s promise from 1964! You DO trust the government to look out for your interests, don’t you?
“The program is designed so that contributions plus interest on the investments of the social security trust funds will be sufficient to meet all of the costs of benefits and administration, now and into the indefinite future—without any subsidy from the general funds of the Government. Both the Congress and the Executive Branch, regardless of political party in power, have scrupulously provided in advance for full financing of all liberalizations in the program.”
And here is where your “contribution” goes!
I’m less than two years away from SS. I would hope they could save it without me taking a cut but if they have to they have to. They need to faze in individual accts. I.E. Those over a certain age continue as is...Those between certain age chose one or the other...those below a certain age go to individual accts>
If you did not faze that in it would never pass.
The word is "phase" and the answer is "obviously."
Democrat pal for ‘saving’ Social Security:
Seize 401k’s so that granny won’t have to eat dog food.
I am not expecting to get a single red cent from Social Security.
I view that money being taken out of my check each week as simply a reduction in pay from the government that I have no control over.
As a matter of fact, I don’t expect to ever be able to retire, but that is only If I’m lucky and continue to have the opportunity to work. If I’m NOT lucky, I’ll be jobless to the end of my days.
So they can, just, keep blaming (long-term political spinning) the GOP and all non-leftists over and over again for its total collapse.
SS will be means tested. If you have enough retirement funds in their opinion, your SS will be given to those who need it.
Yep. If I could convince my wife, I would tell her to pull all of our money out of our 401K now, pay the penalty and buy gold. With all the inflation coming, that money will be worthless, and what of it isn’t worthless, the government is going to attempt to grab and control.
My wife would never even consider this, soooo...I’ll go down with everyone else, but I’ll be married.
Interesting...recently, during a conversation, I asked her: “Sweetheart, I’m just curious: Where do you think the economy is headed?” She thought it was going to be lousy for a while, then get better. Well, I guess I know what tack I am taking, then. Joined at the hip...for better, or worse.
Even better, here’s the partial 2010 “hit list” as well.
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as president of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If it were that, I wouldn’t care, but...I just don’t think it is going to stop there. I don’t expect to see any of it, so it wouldn’t be any skin of of my back, but I just don’t think our other retirement money will be safe, either. I know it is a pretty grim assessment, but there you have it...
this should be fun to watch as it is largely the purpose for Obama’s deficit commission
I have said it before, and will say it again: Liberalism has posed and does pose a greater danger to America than any other enemy.
I recall that oath I took when I went into the US Navy:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
I think that the part about "domestic enemies" is turning out to be the most relevant one.
I have never been fazed by the improper use of phased.
You must have gone to school a long time ago when such things mattered. /s
Superb list. If the GOP had any balls, they would turn it into a one minute advertisement and air it wall to wall.
Same way as cutting taxes creates an expense to the government! It's all eyewash to leverage peoplse emotions and get votes! Pure and simple.
Speekuh duh peon's Eenglish?
While I am pretty down on Social Security for being a ponzi welfare scheme, I don't know what Republicans thought they would accomplish by proposing reforming it again. They tried it in 2005 with Bush and it was a political disaster for them. Pelosi still brags about scaring congressional Republicans into running from SS reform.
In fact Obama recently baited the Tea party movement to demand cuts in SS benefits, you see any Republicans using this against him? Read it yourself:
“ So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do?” he added. “It's not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it's important for you to say, I'm willing to cut veterans’ benefits or I'm willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I'm willing to see these taxes go up ”
Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'
The problem with SS reform is that no deal will ever be possible without raising taxes, and raising taxes specifically for SS makes NO sense when the last time they did that under Reagan, they (both parties) just spent the surplus on other things and left a bunch of worthless IOUs and debt.
Now what Republicans should do is a long process of communication, make clear to voters that (some of) today's SS benefits are being paid by general treasury fund borrowing, as well as taxes on SS benefits (figure that out!). They need to slowly work on people and convince voters that the federal government of either party cannot be trusted with money, that there will ALWAYS be multiple emergencies declared to spend it.
The first thing they should is explain is why SS benefits are being ‘taxed’ to go to the general fund to pay off the IOUs to pay current SS benefits. THIS IS A COMPLETE SCAM!
” The first thing they should is explain is why SS benefits are being taxed to go to the general fund to pay off the IOUs to pay current SS benefits. THIS IS A COMPLETE SCAM! “
And Bernie Madoff is fiercely gripping his prison bars screaming out....
H E Y !!
H E Y !!!!
My thoughts exactly.
mrs g just got her annual ss ‘statement’ in the mail...i LOLd at the fact that that piece of copy paper was worth more than her account in physical money...
Pitiful, ain’t it?
Even if real conservatives took over 100% of the GOP, I think if they actually tried to reform entitlements in any real way, unfortunately, voters would throw them out.
Yeah I know, gloom and doom.
Party of NO
“SS will be means tested. If you have enough retirement funds in their opinion, your SS will be given to those who need it.”
It is already means tested in a number of ways. First, Social Security benefits are taxed for anyone who has saved for retirement. This taxation touches even the individual’s contributions even though those contributions were are already taxed. Second, Social Security has a number of welfare aspects that are means tested.
If you retire, and have a yearly income of 100,000, how much can you collect?
Nothing I think. SS takes away 50 cents on every dollar you earn above a small level.
I would LOVE to see someone like Chris Wallace, or some good interviewer, ask a Congressperson (preferably a Dem) why they object to "privatizing Social Security" when they themselves have the option of putting part of their income into a system they claim is "too risky" for "ordinary folks" to take advantage of.
Betcha there would be some mighty sputtering going on in answer to any question about the Thrift Savings Plan, and why it is offered to Federal employees, and not to private sector ones!
You’ve got a GREAT Republican ad right there in what you wrote. Needs to go to the RNC (or any local Republican ad campaign) and get on national TV. It is simply the truth!!
I retired at 52 4 years ago. I will get nothing. No different than the feds sticking their hand in my back pocket, and stealing my wallet.
Our current government is no better than Bernie Madoff.
” Betcha there would be some mighty sputtering going on in answer to any question about the Thrift Savings Plan, and why it is offered to Federal employees, and not to private sector ones! “
Megyn Kelly might have the guts to do this. I doubt anyone else would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.