# Democratic position on Social Security? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200 "2005-02-03T17:25:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/21 "2005-02-04T20:39:47Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > You can argue that there is no crisis in Social Security. But you can’t argue that the idea that there’s a crisis in Social Security comes from Bush to screw the Democrats. At least not if you want to retain any credibility. Of course I can. Before Bush decided that the chicken needed its head cut off, Democrats and Republicans in Congress were basically agreed that some minor changes needed to be made to keep the program solvent: just like happened in 1983. It wasn’t a huge central issue for beating each other up over the head with. The only really contentious issue was over the effect of the deficit: SS could actually have been fine without doing much of anything. Clinton’s rhetoric wasn’t directed at Republicans to sell a new program that has nothing to do with fixing SS. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/22 "2005-02-04T20:52:41Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Bush didn’t invent the Social Security crisis for political gain He’s calling it a “crisis” – when it’s not – for political gain. **That** is the point you are apparently missing. Heck, I’ll let the _New York Times_ [explain it:](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/opinion/02sat1.html?ex=1107666000&en=e3a8a74558b7e0ab&ei=5070&oref=login&th) > [@](#): > > **How to Save Social Security** > Published: October 2, 2004 > > Rumors of the death of Social Security have been widely exaggerated. This year, the system’s trustees reported that the fund is solvent until 2042, when it would still be able to pay about 70 percent of the promised benefits. **That is not a crisis.** To put the shortfall into perspective, consider that in the next 75 years - the span of time over which the trustees plan for solvency - President Bush’s plan to lock in his tax cuts would cost about three times what it would take to fix Social Security. Now that’s alarming. > > Politicians have nearly four decades to phase in Social Security reforms. With so much time, the cost of updating Social Security can be shared by everyone, and mitigated for all. > > **The answer is not creating private investment accounts** within Social Security - President Bush’s chosen tack. > > …What ails Social Security is well understood: there are increasingly fewer taxpaying workers to support each retiree, and retirees are living longer. But **the onset of these destabilizing trends does not mean that Social Security is outdated.** On the contrary, the system’s adaptability is one of its great strengths. > > …Clearly, **it’s possible to reform Social Security while preserving its essential character:** a contract under which the young support the old via taxes, and the rich help the poor through a benefit formula that favors the neediest. … It’s time to stop fretting about Social Security. Everyone knows what needs to be done - and **it’s not all that drastic.** And heck, let’s watch Rex Nutting at CBS Marketwatch present [George W. Bush vs. Reality:](http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/01/truth-in-headlines.html) > [@](#): > > _Bush: “As a matter of fact, by the time today’s workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you’re 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you’re beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now.”_ > > **The facts:** The Social Security system cannot go “bankrupt,” for it has no creditors. By law, the trustees will continue to pay reduced benefits even if the trust fund is exhausted. Payroll taxes will continue to come in and benefits will continue to be paid. > > According to the trustees’ intermediate economic forecast (neither doom nor boom), the trust fund will be able to pay about 73 percent of scheduled benefits in 2042 and about 68 percent of scheduled benefits in 2078. > > _Bush: “In the year 2018, in order to take care of baby boomers like me and – (laughter) – some others I see out there – (laughter) – the money going out is going to exceed the money coming in.”_ > > **The facts:** According to the SSA, costs are projected to exceed income, including tax revenues and interest income from the trust funds’ bonds, starting in 2028, not 2018. The 2018 date is when tax revenues alone no longer meet costs; workers have been paying extra taxes since 1983 to build up the trust funds’ assets for just this eventuality. > > _Bush: “The problem is, is that times have changed since 1935. Then, most women did not work outside the house, and the average life expectancy was about 60 years old – which for a guy 58 years old, must have been a little discouraging. Today, Americans, fortunately, are living longer and longer. I mean, we’re living way beyond 60 years old, and most women are working outside the house. Things have shifted.”_ > > **The facts:** According to the SSA, the life expectancy for a 65-year-old man in 1940 was 76.9 years. Today, a man aged 65 can be expected to live to 81. Most of the increase in life expectancy in the past half century has been for infants, not for the elderly. > > The increase in the percentage of women working outside the home has boosted Social Security’s resources, rather than depleted them. Today, many women who worked receive a widow’s pension rather than their own earned benefits. All the payroll taxes they paid are funding someone else’s retirement. Bottom line, there is nothing coming down the pike with Social Security that’s so outrageously catastrophic that merits a radical solution like privatization. But sensible, well-reasoned solutions won’t allow the Bush Administration to accomplish its _real_ goal of destroy Social Security. Hence all the bullshit talk about the Social Security “crisis”, which is merely recycling the same tactic they used to sell the Iraq war two years ago. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/23 "2005-02-04T21:40:29Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > AFAIK the IOU scheme hasn’t been happening for 70 years, but rather only since Vietnam. > > But yes, were the money being invested instead of cashed, we wouldn’t have this problem. Which is what Bush is suggesting (with the important IMO addition of ownership). Baloney. First of all, the money is being invested - in government bonds. Second of all, the bulk of the money is going to current expenses. You might as well argue that the government should be investing the money it puts into the military. If they had invested all that money then our current taxes would be lower. Of course they couldn’t do that because they were soending the money for current expenses; just like SS. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/24 "2005-02-05T00:22:26Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > He’s calling it a “crisis” – when it’s not – for political gain. **That** is the point you are apparently missing. You’re either missing or astutely avoiding the actual point – that Bush didn’t come up with the “crisis” hyperbole. You and **Apos** both said that the Social Security crisis hyperbole was created by Bush for political gain. I’ve pointed out that Clinton also referred to a “looming Social Security crisis” _3 years before Bush took office_. So you’ve got two choices: admit you’re wrong and that the idea of Social Security in “crisis” was around long before Bush, or explain why Clinton’s characterization of a Social Security “crisis” was accurate while Bush’s is wrong. So I’ll ask again – has the Social Security situation improved under Bush? Or was Clinton also “lying” when he said Social Security was heading toward a “crisis”? > [@rjung](#): > > Bottom line, there is nothing coming down the pike with Social Security that’s so outrageously catastrophic that merits a radical solution like privatization. I’m not debating Bush’s methods for avoiding the Social Security crisis. I’m debating your methods for arguing that Bush is a jerk. I have no problem with people asserting that privatization alone won’t avoid the problems with Social Security. As I said earlier, privatization alone isn’t intended to avoid the insolvency of Social Security. I have a problem with people making up facts about Bush to advance their own political agendas. > [@Apos](#): > > Of course I can. Before Bush decided that the chicken needed its head cut off, Democrats and Republicans in Congress were basically agreed that some minor changes needed to be made to keep the program solvent: just like happened in 1983. It wasn’t a huge central issue for beating each other up over the head with. The only really contentious issue was over the effect of the deficit: SS could actually have been fine without doing much of anything. > > Clinton’s rhetoric wasn’t directed at Republicans to sell a new program that has nothing to do with fixing SS. [sigh] Let’s start with the fact that [Clinton thought partial privatization of Social Security might help alleviate the Social Security crisis](http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/dec1998/soc-d09.shtml). (See also [this](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/security/stories/oss110998.htm) and [this](http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/13/talk.wrap/) 2000 article talking about Lieberman’s one-time support for privatization). And if Social Security would have been “fine” with only minor adjustments, then why did Clinton refer to the “looming Social Security crisis”? Was he also lying or playing political games? Moreover, even if you think privatization is a bad idea, that has nothing to do with your assertion that Bush is responsible for making up the idea that Social Security is in crisis. It’s simply not true. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/25 "2005-02-05T00:24:55Z")
In the interests of full disclosure, I should also point out that Clinton never ended up doing more than advocating for privatization, and he only did that for a short time. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/26 "2005-02-05T00:43:47Z")
To quote Michael Moore, “Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we ever had.” Do not make the assumption that just because Clinton supported something meant all the Democrats lined up like ducks behind it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/27 "2005-02-05T03:37:17Z")
You Republicans have a quote from Clinton you can cut out for every occasion. I’m finding it harder and harder to understand what your visceral hatred was for the man. But, yes, please. Encourage Bush to be more like Clinton. We could use times of peace and prosperity again. It was good to read the speech that **Age Quod Agis** linked to - you can see how a leader actually discusses an important issue and how to develop a solution. Here’s a hint - he doesn’t use scare tactics and then tell you there’s going to be a one size fits all Washington-generated solution shoved down your throat. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/28 "2005-02-05T06:41:20Z")
Ya so Clinton said there will be a crisis down the road. Here is what he said should be done \*t is now estimated that with normal ups and downs in economic growth, over the next 10 years, after 30 years of deficits, that the United States will have a budget surplus in somewhere in the range of a trillion dollars in the aggregate over the next 10 years. I have said before we spend a penny of that on new programs or tax cuts, we should save Social Security first. I think it should be the driving principle of this year’s work in the United States Congress – do not have a tax cut, do not have a spending program that deals with that surplus – save Social Security first. Now comes George Bush. And ya bush says we have a crisis with SS Lets disembowel it. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/29 "2005-02-06T13:25:00Z")
I think this collumn by Josh Marshall lays out pretty well why the Clinton and Reid references are so transparently bogus and dishonest, even better than I can. Par for the course: [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week\_2005\_01\_30.php#004700](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_30.php#004700) ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/30 "2005-02-06T13:33:28Z")
> [@](#): > > So I’ll ask again – has the Social Security situation improved under Bush? It’s gotten much much worse, because the federal deficit is far bigger problem that reduces our flexibility for dealing with things like SS. > [@](#): > > I have no problem with people asserting that privatization alone won’t avoid the problems with Social Security. As I said earlier, privatization alone isn’t intended to avoid the insolvency of Social Security. I have a problem with people making up facts about Bush to advance their own political agendas.[sigh] Read the State of the Union address again. What is Bush clearly implying his plan will do? He launches directly from his rhetoric about the system going broke into his privatization plan. > [@](#): > > And if Social Security would have been “fine” with only minor adjustments, then why did Clinton refer to the “looming Social Security crisis”? Was he also lying or playing political games? Because those minor adjustments had to be made, and since they would inevitably require either some people getting taxed more or other people getting benefits, it was something people had to be prepared to accept. > [@](#): > > Moreover, even if you think privatization is a bad idea, that has nothing to do with your assertion that Bush is responsible for making up the idea that Social Security is in crisis. It’s simply not true. Your love for dishonestly twisting the words of others to ask bogus questions is paralleled only by posters that have now left. I didn’t say that Bush first invented the idea that the system was in crisis. I said that he took something that was a fairly non-partisan issue with plenty of reasonable solutions on the table, jacked up the rhetoric to apocalyptic proportions and then tried to use it to sell a plan that doesn’t solve the crisis but only makes it worse. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/31 "2005-02-07T17:10:32Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > [H]e took something that was a fairly non-partisan issue with plenty of reasonable solutions on the table, jacked up the rhetoric to apocalyptic proportions and then tried to use it to sell a plan that doesn’t solve the crisis but only makes it worse. That’s as good a summary as I have heard anywhere. I wish the talking heads on cable had the guts to speak as clearly as that. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200/32 "2005-02-08T02:20:32Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > You Republicans have a quote from Clinton you can cut out for every occasion. I’m finding it harder and harder to understand what your visceral hatred was for the man. I didn’t hate the man. I thought he was a really good, really effective President. But I doubt that you actually care about that, or that it will effect the army of strawmen that you’ve launched in leiu of an argument. > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Here’s a hint - he doesn’t use scare tactics and then tell you there’s going to be a one size fits all Washington-generated solution shoved down your throat. I’m still waiting for someone, anyone to show me where Bush said anything different than Clinton. Both used the word “crisis.” Both talked about substantially raised taxes or severe cuts in benefits. Both used substantially the same rhetoric. And despite your assertion that Bush is calling for “a one size fits all Washington-generated solution shoved down your throat,” Bush explicitly acknowledged that there are lots of proposals _from both parties_ that could help fix the problem, and he called for continuing discussions about the matter. Once again, your characterization of Bush’s speech is just false. > [@Apos](#): > > It’s gotten much much worse, because the federal deficit is far bigger problem that reduces our flexibility for dealing with things like SS. No argument there. > [@Apos](#): > > Read the State of the Union address again. What is Bush clearly implying his plan will do? He launches directly from his rhetoric about the system going broke into his privatization plan. I don’t think this is true. Let’s take a look at Bush’s State of the Union, [shall we](http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/sotu.transcript.3/index.html)? > [@](#): > > I recognize that 2018 and 2042 may seem like a long way off. But those dates are not so distant, as any parent will tell you. If you have a 5-year-old, you’re already concerned about how you’ll pay for college tuition 13 years down the road. If you’ve got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter. And it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress. _[Ed – there’s the rhetoric about it going broke.]_ > > You and I share a responsibility. We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all. _[Ed. – Hmmm, no privatization there.]_ > > Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Sen. John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated._[Ed. – Hmmm, no privatization there. In fact, he discusses numerous other bipartisan options besides privatization.]_ > > All these ideas are on the table. I know that none of these reforms would be easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty, because our children’s retirement security is more important than partisan politics. I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer. We must, however, be guided by some basic principles. We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee that there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future._[Ed. – Hmmm, no privatization there. Just more of that bipartisan stuff about what we need to do.]_ So instead of launching directly into the stuff about privatization, as you suggested, he _talked about numerous other methods suggested by both parties_. And then he said he was hoping to find a _combination_ of reforms, as opposed to just adopting privatization. So it seems that your characterization of Bush’s speech is (say it with me now) totally incorrect. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by me > \*And if Social Security would have been “fine” with only minor adjustments, then why did Clinton refer to the “looming Social Security crisis”? Was he also lying or playing political games? \* > > Originally posted by Apos > _Because those minor adjustments had to be made, and since they would inevitably require either some people getting taxed more or other people getting benefits, it was something people had to be prepared to accept._ So wait … you’re either unable or unwilling (ahem) to accurately point to anything in Bush’s speech that would lead you to believe that Bush’s rhetoric was more inflammatory than Clinton’s. So you apparently just want us to assume that Bush’s speech was “apocalyptic” in tone. I guess because we all know Bush = Hitler, right? Fine. even though you have been unable to point to anyt rhetoric in Bush’s speech that was more inflammatory, I’ll assume for the purposes of this post that despite the fact that your argument was factually incorrect, that Bush’s speech was more inflammatory than Clinton’s. But now that we’ve made the (factually incorrect) assumption that Bush’s speech was rhetorically stronger than Clinton’s, you want us to ignore the fact that Social Security is worse under Bush, thus making the need for Social Security reform more severe. Wouldn’t a greater need justify heightened rhetoric? And your reason for giving Clinton a pass is because he needed to get people prepared to accept raised taxes and “other people getting benefits” [I assume you meant “people getting less benefits”] There are numerous problems with this statement. First, Clinton never actually called for raised taxes or cuts in benefits. He called for spending the surplus to “save Social Security first” so that we wouldn’t have to raise taxes or cut benefits. So I’m not sure how you think his speech prepared people for something he was actually advocating _against_. Second, are you suggesting that people now do not need to be prepared for raised taxes or cutting benefits? I mean, _you_ have suggested in this very thread that Social Security is not in crisis and can be saved through “minor adjustments.” So it sounds like _you_ need to be prepared for the inevitable tax increases and cut benefits. > [@Apos](#): > > Your love for dishonestly twisting the words of others to ask bogus questions is paralleled only by posters that have now left. I didn’t say that Bush first invented the idea that the system was in crisis. I said that he took something that was a fairly non-partisan issue with plenty of reasonable solutions on the table, jacked up the rhetoric to apocalyptic proportions and then tried to use it to sell a plan that doesn’t solve the crisis but only makes it worse. Well, if I’ve misinterpreted your words, I apologize. Let me explain where I got my impression, and you can clear it up. > [@Apos](#): > > The fact is Democrats AND Congressional Republicans basically supported and were quietly talking about how to make minor adjustments to keep the system going, just like they did in the 80s. Most Democrats are still happy to do just this. Nothing has changed (well except that when they first starting talking about reforms, we had a surplus). > > Then, someone decided that this would be a great partisan issue in order to stick it to the Democrats, just like terrorism or a war. So now suddenly it’s a horrid crisis of apocalyptic proportions. If this “suddenly” became a crisis, do you mean that it “suddenly” became a crisis during the Clinton admin? Or are you actually suggesting that it “suddenly” became a crisis during the Bush admin? Thanks for clearing that up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-position-on-social-security/288200.md?page=1)