home

Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Social Security

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue May 24, 2005 at 11:31:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

One day after the awful compromise on filibusters, Republicans already think they can use the same strategy to force a compromise on social security. Lindsay Graham says:

Some who forged the deal expressed hope that the agreement would create momentum for compromise on other knotty issues, such as Social Security and immigration.

"Watch this group when it comes to major problems that the nation faces, like Social Security," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "I think we have created momentum for the idea that if you constructively engage each other, the political reward is high."

Unfortunately, he's probably right. My trust is gone right now. The Democrats said they would not back down on Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown and they did. Why should we believe they won't back down on privitization? Why rally the troops only to have the leaders cave in? I think I'll save my energy for Sensenbrenner's new mandatory minimum, "five years for passing a joint", "snitch or go to jail" bill.

But, I forget. It's my social security they're talking about. Social Security I'm already entitled to. Bush can't have it. Guess I'll just take a short breather and then get back in the game. For those of your ready to start now, Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis writes in this Star Tribune op-ed (and Daily Kos agrees):

In one fell swoop, Democrats should declare the following:

  • The Social Security debate has ended, as the public has rejected partial privatization and is not demanding any hasty changes to the system.
  • In turn, Democrats will no longer participate in congressional hearings on Social Security, and will not debate Social Security with Republicans in the media, at least until Republicans drop privatization.
  • Instead, Democrats will begin addressing the real crisis of Medicare and skyrocketing health care costs, by putting on the table a few comprehensive reform plans, leading their own hearings to foster public debate and discussion about them, and culminating with a single plan for the party to run on in the 2006 congressional elections.

Why would this strategy work? Because it flows from what Democrats have already been saying. For those demanding a Democratic "plan" for a "crisis", give them a plan to help solve a real crisis.

< Funniest Filibuster Blog Post | The Culture Personality Quiz >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Social Security | 25 comments (25 topical)
    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#7)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    SD - You know, I cannot believe your knowledge of money management can be as poor as your comments indicate. You put your money into a professionally managed fund, and watch it grow. You split it between growth funds, capital/asset preservation and the older you get the less you keep in the growth funds. And this is what the private accounts will do. You will not be able, even if you are dumb enough, to put all of your money into one single go-go stock that is likely to make you super rich or super poor. Now you know all of the above, so I find your comments dishonest. You are trying to influence people with false information. That's terrible, and typical.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#8)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Jim, they won't have gotten much if the government (did I mention it was in charge of the prospective FIRS retiree's 'portfolios'?) had stock in all the companies that have gone belly up...such as Enron. Remember Enron? Qwest? Worldcom? Why don't we hear much about them anymore? I wonder why...oh yes, that little matter of fraud and bankruptcy. And those prospective retirees who were foolish enough to trust a market that was increasingly unregulated and driven by political forces (look at how many members of the legislative and executive bodies of this country are very wealthy indeed from their corporate holdings; holdings supposedly being kept in blind trust yet directly affected by their votes) are learning the lessons our grandfathers did immediately after the Great Depression was initiated; that you simply cannot trust the plutocrats. Not when the leash of regulation is removed from their collars. Trust Uncle to run your retirement portfolio? He's your bridge salesman, Jim.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Here's what Jan Bryant Quinn had to say on the subject recently: QUINN: You have hit my hot button, because the fact is that most of us are not good at managing the kind of money you have to manage in a 401(k) plan, nor should we be. The whole idea that we should all be investment bankers -- I mean, if we'd done that, we'd all have gone to work on Wall Street. People are good at their jobs. They're good at other things. And the idea that they have to be able to manage money in order to secure their own retirement, I think, is one of the great myths of our time. And it's been a serious problem, as you can see, with some of the 401(k) plans where people have lost everything by being in the wrong stocks. Link A Nobel winner in Economics wrote a recent piece in the LAT that you can find here.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#10)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Problem is PPJ that in the carve-out there is no employer matching, so you lose 50% right off the top. And then there is the coming devaluation of American companies that will inevitably result as China and India are growing and the United States is shrinking. By the numbers, unless we import about 500 million people, and lower wages to third-world levels, there is no way the stock market will perform over the next 100 years they way it has in the past 100 years. Oh and then there's that several trillion dollar transition cost that nobody seems to want to talk about. There's a reason Bush's leading proponent of privatization has jumped ship. He finally looked at the numbers and didn't see what you are seeing.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#11)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    when asked about the future of the American Economy, the US comptroller said "Argentina". He went on to say that all the models the track the economy blow up in 2014-2015 when all tax revenue is projected to be needed to service the debt. You act as if there is no risk in putting money in the market. Thats dishonest. And my real point was that SS is supposed to be a safety net to help when diaster strikes. BTW diaster is staring us in the face.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#1)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    "My money." That's the point that has to be rammed home between their eyes: It's OUR MONEY. When I worked for the Feds, way back in the day, I had joined at the time they were moving from the old CSRS pension system to the (then) new FIRS. A section of FIRS was pegged to the stock market. Guess what? Nobody trusted the FIRS, for obvious reasons. The higher-ups put on all kinds of slick dog-and-pony shows (full of the wonders of free-market pegging of retirement with the stock market; this was back in the go-go 1980's) to get you to switch, and very, very few of the old-timers did. So what did they do? They rolled all the new hires into FIRS whether they wanted to be in it or not. Needless to say, many of my former co-workers are now facing a retirement nowhere near as rosy as they thought it would be. Don't let this happen to you. Let these 'idjits' know you will get more than a little upset with their monkeying around with Mom and Dad's and your money.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    Why worry about SS. Given the advances in the Patriot act we're all going to locked up for contributing to this subversive blog ;-). Three squares a day and all the rest you could want.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    It is nice to think that it's your money. Is it in a private account where you can withdraw any of the funds that have been paid into SS in your name? No. "Revenues have collapsed." The words of a US Senator on C-SPAN referring to Social Security funding from taxpayer contributions. The US gov knows that the money is no longer there and is going, going... gone. They'll all point with pride and view with alarm and huff and puff for a while, and then *poof* Social Security will be a thing of the past. In my opinion: You can forget about it. Welcome to sovietized America.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    How can the republicans reform Social Security under Senator Frist. Hasn't anyone read about what his father did as the head of HCA hospital, the largest hospital group in the US. he overbilled Medicare and that is how Frist got rich. I am on medicare and this year our cost of living increase was less then the national cost of living. Our part b coverage went up to the point, we actually lost money. In addition medicare part b is now paying less and less of outpatient charges, it now is approximately 50% and we pay %50% and it is going to get worse. The cost of medicare co insurance is going through the roof averaging $400 to $600 a month for a couple, and there are still high deductables to pay. Something has to be done, but a man whose father broke the law, over billing medicare is not the man to make decisions regarding medicare. I will attempt to post an article about this issue. By the way, I am a new member and love this website.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#5)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    SeeEmDee - Those who went into FRS will get a much better return on their money than you will ever get. And if you doubt that there is a bridge in Brooklyn the locals will happily sell you. See Vinny at the Pool Hall. dronchee - Exactly. That is why private accounts are so important. et al - Go down to the Post Office, fill out the card and send it in. In a few weeks the SS Admin will send you a copy of what you have paid in, by year. Then multiply by two, to include your employer's contribution, and you will then have the total. Then go to SS and find out what you will receive. Then with the yearly and total figures you can do all kinds of math to see how much more you would have received had you invested in stocks and/or bonds. Caution. Have your blood pressure medicine nearby because you'll be 500 over 500 when you see what the real deal is.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    Put all your money in the market watch it collapse, Go get blood pressure meds, oh wait no safety net. No meds, your screwed

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#12)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    It's my social security they're talking about. Social Security I'm already entitled to.
    That's the problem with the pyramid scheme-based approach. You think you're entitled to the next generation's money, in addition to your employer's money beyond salary. I don't know how old TL is, but I'm only 25 and she's been a lawyer since at least 1974 . So I guestimate I'll still be paying into S.S. after she's already recieved benefits beyond what she's paid in. So, if your worried about your money, let's just phase out the program and give refunds(*). Otherwise, you should aknowledge that you're talking about my money. (*)This is actually a very bad idea, but the 'net doesn't need me to add my detailed half-thought-out S.S. plan to the hundreds already out there.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    "[This week] Mr. Bush made another admission that has cropped up more frequently in his speeches: that individual accounts will not help the cash flow problem set to occur within the Social Security system. His proposal, he said, is "not the way to fix the system." " 'It's going to require other matters to fix the system,' Mr. Bush said…He made the same point - which skeptics about his proposals have been making for months - in his March 16 news conference, telling reporters that ‘personal accounts do not solve the issue.'" [New York Times, 3/23/05]

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    Your headline is correct in that the repugs are using the word compromise as a verb.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    See writes - "if the government (did I mention it was in charge of the prospective FIRS retiree's 'portfolios'?) had stock in all the companies that have gone belly up...such as Enron." ...actually it is FERS, but what's in a name? And actually it is a retirement plan, not a 401K/IRA. So there are no "portfolios." And actually it is protected by the Pension Benefit protection plan (sorry, I don't have the alpjhabet soup letters). And actually it is almost identical to the various state plans. And actually it works kinda like this. You are vested after 5 years, and upon retiremnet your benefit is based on the best three of your last five. Link And if a bull frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#16)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    DA - The link you reference has nothing to do with SC. It is a discussion of the problems with the current company funded plans, etc., and has some valid points. But the statement: "QUINN: You have hit my hot button, because the fact is that most of us are not good at managing the kind of money you have to manage in a 401(k) plan, nor should we be. The whole idea that we should all be investment bankers -- I mean, if we'd done that, we'd all have gone to work on Wall Street." has nothing to do with private SC accounts, because the private accounts will not be as accessible as 401K's/IRA's, etc., and will be managed by professional money managers. Now, you either didn't read the transcript, or deliberately picked out a "scare" quote. Which is it?

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    DA - blah blah blah I put the quote out there, and I think it relates to the privatization/personal/personalized part of SS that Bush has been talking about since the beginning of the year. I wasn't up on the latest proposals from the WH, but my opinion of the Pri/Per/Etc, plan hasn't changed. Anyway: I didn't know that Jeralyn had given you scolding or belittlement powers about what people post on the threads here. I guess that was right after one of your comments was deleted recently, yes? I happen to hear the program last night, so saying I didn't read the transcript means that you shouldn't consider a career move into the telephone psychic field, just a little friendly advice. has nothing to do with private SC accounts, because the private accounts will not be as accessible as 401K's/IRA's, etc., and will be managed by professional money manager You should ask Ron Perlman about 'professional money managers', he'd give you an earful, I'm sure. If you remember the Enron employees and their 401(k)s, they weren't able to sell off the stock in their accounts, so that arguement about lack of access doesn't sit well with me. Even honest money managers sometimes can't avoid market zig-zags and swings. That's why SS is there, so that a basic income is avaliable no matter what happens in the market or other circumstances that are beyond the retirees control. I say tighten up the current IRA, 401(k) plans, etc, don't scrap them(which I believe is also part of the reform, c'est ne pas?) open up the limits on the Savers Credit and do some tinkering. What isn't needed is to devise a whole side machine in the name of "the ownership society" which would itself give no advantage if the low-growth estimates vis SS were to come true. WOOHOO!PPJ not only managed to get the spelling right he remembered how to bold.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#18)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    DA - The comment did not say you were off topic. So I have no idea as to why you are concerned about that. Perhaps your conscience is hurting you. And that the comment was not accurate as far as access of private accounts in SC.The comment said that the interview was not about SC. You tried to use it as a scare tactic about private accounts to score points. All BS aside, all dodging aside, that is a dishonest tactic.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    The comment did not say you were off topic Funny, cause I could've sworn that's what this is about: The link you reference has nothing to do with SC. Perhaps your conscience is hurting you. Perhaps monkeys might fly out of my rear end tonight as well. And that the comment was not accurate as far as access of private accounts in SC.The comment said that the interview was not about SC. I don't know what that statement came from, but I know I didn't make it on this thread.. Are you using italics to set up a straw man, or are you just moaning and b******* as usual? You tried to use it as a scare tactic about private accounts to score points. No, I pointed out what a expert on personal finances has said about people and their ability(or lack thereof) to invest wisely for their own retirement. I gave a link to the whole interview so that the context is clear, especially since Jeralyn is saved bandwidth by my not reproducing the whole exchange here. All BS aside, all dodging aside, that is a dishonest tactic Yes, but since we know that smearing your opponent in a debate is so much easier that using facts and logic, I really can't chide you for your self-description of what you do here, because to quote someone a while back, "It's hard work!".

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#20)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    DA - Avoidance is your strongest point. Your comment was about SC. But the source you used was not about SC. And the souce "expert," who is really not an expert but a writer for Newsweek (now there is a recommendation), was making comments about company sponsored 401K's in a discussion about pension plans. DA, repeat after me. Company sponsored 401K's, personal IRA's and personal Keogh's are not connected to, or part of, Social Security or the proposed private accounts. So your expert's advice is about accounts in which the individual has almost immediatelt access to allow them to change the investments around. As you know, SC private accounts do not operate like that. So, quit trying to scare us. And if moneys do fly out your butt that is a personal problem you really don't have to share with us. As for

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    What makes me sure privatization is a con is this.....if the Bush admin. really wanted us to "control our own money", they'd just let us keep it. No where in his plans do I see a "no thanks, I'll take care of myself" option. It's reverse wealth re-distribution, the poor and middle class subsidizing wealthy Wall St. investment firms by federal mandate.

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    DA - Avoidance is your strongest point. You listed other points before, PPJ. Didn't you tell me once that it was my dishonesty here? If you're trying to get on my good side, flattery isn't the answer. As for avoidance You Oughta Know PPJ, as you've managed to avoid any criticism of Bushco since you've started posting here. But the source you used was not about SC. And I never said it was. Should I post OT like every other lout who posts on the internets and worries about dumba**** like you not understanding why a particular post is made? And the souce "expert," who is really not an expert but a writer for Newsweek (now there is a recommendation), was making comments about company sponsored 401K's in a discussion about pension plans. You forgot to mention that she also writes for Good Housekeeping, which also makes for her suspect, right? And the fact that Newsweek did a lousy job on one story in their Periscope makes everyone and every other subject ever written about in Newsweek automatically suspect. Will you be a good guy and e-mail George Will with your startling realization? et al This is what I got from a website offering her as a speaker: She has received an Emmy for outstanding business news coverage and the Gerald Loeb Lifetime Achievement Award for Distinguished Business and Financial Journalism. More about the latter award here. I've yet to see documentation or other evidence that she doesn't know what she's talking about, except that I quoted her here, which is enough to raise your ire/skepticism. Typical, one might say. So your expert's advice is about accounts in which the individual has almost immediatelt(sp) access to allow them to change the investments around. I guess you missed this part: And the idea that they have to be able to manage money in order to secure their own retirement, I think, is one of the great myths of our time which, coincidentally, is one of the arguements made for privatization, that people will do better if they're allowed to manage part of their SS retirement in a private account than if they passively contribute to and then retire from the current system. As you know, SC private accounts do not operate like that. Since there is yet to be a specific proposal coming out of Congress, or even a draft sent there from the WH, telling us what these 'accounts' 'are like' is pretty funny on your part. LOL! So, quit trying to scare us. You don't like my Count Floyd imitation? "The goverment wants to put your retirement money in the hands of the same guys who thought the tech bubble wouldn't burst. EEEW!, that's scary stuff!" And if moneys(sp) do fly out your butt that is a personal problem you really don't have to share with us. You really don't have much of a sense of humor unless it involves belittling and putting down others who disagree with the 'truth' that you said you're here to tell us, do you? I wouldn't call attention to that fact, unless you need different meds from the nice doctors at the VA.............. As for Remember, the Preview button is your friend, not the doorbell to Satans' condo. Just so you know. BTW, you'll need to work on your act. The season starts on June 4th on the Poconos. If you want to get more than a few giggles from the audience, you'll need to do better than this. Shame on you!

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#23)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    DA - News writing and finance ability is two completely different things. As would be, playing major league baseball and writing about it. And no, I didn't miss the anchor comment meant to terrify the great unwashed and uninformed. Again. That interview, and comment, was about company sponsored 401K's/IRA's vs the old days when retirement plans were 100% company funded. As I noted, I thought the interview and discussion was great when viewed in light of the actual subject. All I have said is that the CNN interview you linked to had nothing to do with Social Security, and that you just used it as a scare tactic. And I see you still want to be my secretary. Do you do coffee?

    Re: Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Soci (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:23 PM EST
    News writing and finance ability (are-ed)is two completely different things. True, but sometimes they can combine and you get someone who has won both a major TV award(not a Peabody, but hey, it's one more than either of us have won) and an award from a major university that is for Distinguished Business and Financial Journalism. So she's a journalist who writes about finance and business matters. There wouldn't be magazines like Fortune, Business Week, etc., without such folks. Aside from the high crime of writing for Newsweek, you really don't have much to discredit her, and it's fun to watch you try. As would be, playing major league baseball and writing about it Ever heard of a book by a guy named Bolton called "Ball Four"? And no, I didn't miss the anchor comment meant to terrify the great unwashed and uninformed. You're being too hard on your ol' TV buddy Aaron. He's pulling a Count Floyd here too? How disgusting! All I have said is that the CNN interview you linked to had nothing to do with Social Security, and that you just used it as a scare tactic. I must repeat myself? Very well then: "I guess you missed this part: And the idea that they have to be able to manage money in order to secure their own retirement, I think, is one of the great myths of our time which, coincidentally, is one of the arguements made for privatization, that people will do better if they're allowed to manage part of their SS retirement in a private account than if they passively contribute to and then retire from the current system." I find it amusing that you chide me for a post that according to you is OT, while Jeralyn tells you in the OJ juror thread above: No go at changing the topic. And I see you still want to be my secretary. No, I much rather point out your poor grammar and spelling that crops up from time to time in your posts. If you don't want me to comment or point out your errors which would disgrace a high school junior, then don't make them here. You can bluster, fume, fret, stand on top of your head for all I care, but I'll only stop when Jeralyn asks me to do so. You just need to get over your fear or whatever factor restrains you from using the Preview button to look over your work before releasing it to the internets. No secretary needed, just a few moments of inspection, then you can post after your error-correction wetware finished its' work. I count on you to keep making errors, PPJ, and so far you haven't disappointed me. Keep up the good work. Do you do coffee? Judging from the temperment you've demonstrated here in the past few weeks, you might want to lay off the java, maybe switch to Postum or decaf......

    Why don't we hear much about them anymore? (none / 0) (#25)
    by tokmik on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    Why don't we hear much about them anymore? I wonder why...oh yes, that little matter of fraud and bankruptcy. When I worked for the Feds, way back in the day, I had joined at the time they were moving from the old CSRS pension system to the (then) new FIRS. A section of FIRS was pegged to the stock market.
    Security Cameras

    Republicans Think They Can Now Compromise Social Security | 25 comments (25 topical)