I’ve had an AARP membership invitation sitting on my desk for weeks, not sure if I was going to send it in. On the strength of this alone, they get my $30. If the neocons are against them, they must be doing something right.
You’re right, Dave, nothing has been seriously proposed. Switching Social Security from a defined-benefit plan to a defined-contribution plan has not been seriously proposed. Private accounts have not been seriously proposed. Funding those accounts from individuals’ payroll taxes has not been seriously proposed. Borrowing trillions of dollars to pay for the transition has not been seriously proposed. Indexing benefits to the CPI rather than wages has not been seriously proposed. A requirement that what’s in your private account when you retire be used to purchase an annuity that would bring your total SocSec benefits up to at least the poverty level, if possible with what’s in the account, has not been seriously proposed. The ‘clawback’ has not been seriously proposed. And on and on.
The fact is, the Bush Administration non-proposal has ‘not been seriously proposed’ in great detail by senior Administration officials. But have it your way.
This is relatively minor, but the threshold age for AARP membership is 50. And Bush’s non-plan could give a noticeable hit to those of us in the 50-54 age bracket - yet by 2009 (a date that has not been seriously proposed), we’ll be too close to retirement for investing in stocks to make a lot of sense; we’d be betting on local fluctuations in the S&P.
I just wanted to clarify that the things Bush has been floating do not improve Social Security for those under 55, they weaken it. According to their own statements, these changes would not improve the solvency of SS, but would add trillions in costs.
How can people be so stupid, indeed?
When there is an actual proposal on the table, as in “this specifically is what we want to do, lets get it through Congress”, then we can talk. I may like it, I may not, I’ll judge it when it exists. Until then all of this is just so much Bush-is-the-Antichrist alarmist yammering. One thing is for sure, in 2018 or thereabouts, SS goes from subsidizing the national debt to adding to it. I’d rather not try to deal with the problem in 2017.
The problem with that, Weirddave is that it is highly unlikely that Bush will put forth a plan with specific details until Frist can hustle it up for a vote in a late night session in which the Republicans can curry, cudgel and bribe support from enough people who haven’t even had time to read any of the specific details.
At least, that has been his practice in the past.
All of this is just so much Bush-is-the-Antichrist alarmist yammering. I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe that that’s possible. There are enough Republican Senators and Congresspeople who have flat out said that they won’t support any plan until it’s been examined in detail to ensure that Bush doesn’t have a majority in either house, even if he wanted to try the middle of the night shenanigans that you are describing. Frankly, even if every Republican Senator was foaming at the mouth to immediately pass any and all legislation proposed by the White House, they don’t have the 3/5 majority needed to invoke cloture of the inevitable Democratic fillibuster. What you are describing is impossible.
All they have to do in the Senate is cobble together some bill that gives a few Lieberman-esque Democrats some cover to vote for, and then they can reshape it in committee any way they want, particularly since the house version won’t have this.
Say they make some deal where they raise the payroll tax level from 87K or 90K to 120K to address solvency and then have add-on private accounts. They may get some senate Democrats with this ploy.
And there have been plenty of Republican Senators and Congresspeople who have been waffling or non-committal, but may sound like they are opposed. They say they are against privatization, but really mean that they support Bush’s plan because it isn’t called privatization. There are only 20 house republicans who have expressed any degree of opposition, and only 4 of them have been strong or unequivocal. There are only five senate republicans who have expressed opposition, and only one of them is unequivocal. See “the Conscience Caucus” at www.talkingpointsmemo.com.
For an example of the waffling, see Norm Coleman, cited at www.talkingpointsmemo.com :
Despite the lack of actual legislation on the table (and I second what Hentor said with respect to that), the Bush White House has put forward the overall structure of a plan; I don’t see that enough is missing so that Bush’s plan can’t be judged now.
BTW, isn’t it time to stop talking about 2018? If we’re gonna fight ignorance, we should at least get our dates right. Nothing much is going to happen in 2018, unless the government stops paying interest on the Trust Fund notes. (Does anyone claim that’s going to happen? If not, then no 2018 talk, please.
According to the Social Security Trustees (go about 2/3 of the way down the page, to the table entitled, “Key Dates for the Trust Funds”), 2018 is when the OASDI trust fund (the combined old-age and disability trust funds) will start paying out more in benefits than it takes in in payroll taxes.
However, there are two missing details.
By far the more significant one is that the Trust Fund has assets which pay interest, and according to the Trustees, payroll tax income plus interest income will continue to exceed benefit payouts until 2028 for OASDI.
A more minor detail is that the President has said that his plan won’t affect the disability portion of Social Security. In that case, to do a comparison between the President’s plan and the existing system, we should consider OASI, the old-age benefit fund, by itself. The OASI fund does slightly better by itself; its payouts won’t exceed revenues for another year, until 2029. (Without DI, OASI doesn’t exhaust its trust fund until 2044, rather than 2042.)
So 2029 is when the Trustees say the old-age portion of Social Security will first have to dip into principal. Up until then, it’s earning at least enough to make the payments. And that’s the first point at which America’s overall budget problems potentially threaten the well-being of the retirement portion of Social Security.
What RTFirefly said. Your definition of “seriously proposed” is seriously deficient. And beside the point as well. The question I was responding to was, “How the heck do the Pubbies figure on getting away with this.” Well, if guys like you sit around until something is “serioiusly proposed” I suspect it will be rather easy.
Video of Young Republicans in Pennsylvania shouting,
Hey hey, ho ho,
Social Security’s got to go!
At least they’re upfront about it.
Why, you’re right! I recall in the 1999 SOTU address, President Clinton seriously proposed establishing USAs to supliment social security. Right after he was elected he seriously proposed universal health care. Both of those serious proposals went nowhere. So have thousands of other serious proposals going back decades.
So Weirddave, you’re now arguing that there is a serious proposal, but it will go nowhere? Geez, in only 11 short posts you’ve completed a reversal. Impressive!
Not at all, although I concede that I walked right into that one. (We need a “boink!” smiley) I trust the meaning of my statement was clear, no? Using RTF’s definition of a serious proposal (not mine, I explained what that was a few posts back), than this is indeed “serious”. However, in RTF world every time G.W. Bush farts it’s serious, and likely intentionally directed at democrats too.
And at this point it’s a fart that’s lasted three and a half months, that the President’s taken on a road show across quite a few states now.
That’s one serious fart. And GWB’s pretty damn proud of it.
An interesting definition of seriousness - if it doesn’t become law, it isn’t a serious proposal.
Clinton would certainly be surprised to find out that he wasn’t serious about universal health care, seeing as how he intended it to be the chief accomplishment of his first two years in office, if not his whole presidency. (I have no idea how serious he was about USAs. Chances are he proposed dozens of initiatives in that SOTU.) Similarly, GWB has made it clear that Social Security deform is his #1 legislative objective for this year.
And how much universal health care do we have? Did it ever get before Congress? That’s when something becomes a posibility, that’s when it’s “serious” in my book. So let’s ammend the language so we can agree here, OK? You state that SS reform is a serious proposal. I will agree with you. However, as much as I would like some sensible SS reform, it’s nowhere close to being a serious possibility right now, I hope you will agree with that.
As pretty much everyone knows by now, the Social Security Administration has been banging the crisis drums on its ‘on hold’ recorded messages, and on the annual statements they send out to all of us who pay into the system.
I don’t know if this is real, but on the Philadelphia Craigslist:
An essentially identical ad was on the Boston Craigslist before it was pulled late today.
Ah, you have failed to distinguish between a ‘possiblity’ and a ‘proposal’. I see.
No, I just refuse to play your bullshit dictionary games. The meaning of what I said was pretty clear from the beginning. Rather than dealing with the substance of my posts, you hijacked the thread with a semantic nitpick yet again. It’s a tired old GD trick to avoid debate over the issues. If that’s the game you want to play, go ahead. I laid out the semantic differences last post, you now have a choice: You can address the issue, or make snide comments. So far you’ve chosen the later. I await substance.
“Bullshit dictionary games?” Jesus, that’s rich. You were the one saying that you couldn’t discuss any plans because none were “seriously proposed,” making critics “blithering idiots.”
Then your argument was that okay, maybe there were proposals being discussed by the administration, but they cannot be discussed because they are not likely. Observations about how this administration has conducted business in the past, and the rhetorical dancing of Republicans, most of whom would very likely end up supporting anything the president puts forth anyways are dismissed.
Now you are criticizing others for bullshit games and tricks, and claiming you have had substance to your posts. Frankly, I’m not sure what your point is that you are awaiting substance about. I think you’ve been trying to distract from the point of the OP the whole time.
And once again, “amend” has only one fucking “m”!