• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democrat to offer Social Security plan

Capt. America

New member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
Dallas
Here it is:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/legislative/2005-05-14-wexler-ss_x.htm

Sounds like it is short and to the point. Bush's plan looks to be to unsecure and I see a S&L situation down the line, in which we will have to bail a large portion of the population out because of mismanagement. I see security firms being under pressure to make more money and what better place then the government.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Raising taxes is the only thing Democrats know how to do. It didn't take much thought to come up with that 'Plan". :doh
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Capt. America said:
Here it is:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/legislative/2005-05-14-wexler-ss_x.htm

Sounds like it is short and to the point. Bush's plan looks to be to unsecure and I see a S&L situation down the line, in which we will have to bail a large portion of the population out because of mismanagement. I see security firms being under pressure to make more money and what better place then the government.


"His legislation was heralded by the White House in part because Democrats had steadfastly refused to offer an alternative to Bush's plan."


He has guts to offer something up without the consent of his party but at least he has the gumption to offer something at all.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
at least he has the gumption to offer something at all.
Yup, have to give him credit for that.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
First, let it be understood that any employer contribution is money that would have gone to the employee as salary.

So, as I see it, someone earning $90,000 will pay an additional payroll tax of $60,000 over the next ten years, $120,000 over the next twenty years, $180,000 over the next thirty years, and about a quarter of a million dollars over the next forty years.

With the continuous creep of wages, how long will it take before most of the work force is earning $90,000?

The retirement plan enjoyed by Congress is almost identical to what the Bush Administration is proposing. If it's good enough for Congress, why isn't the plan good enough for its constituents?
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Squawker said:
Raising taxes is the only thing Democrats know how to do. It didn't take much thought to come up with that 'Plan". :doh
I could have told you that was going to be the Democrats "plan" long before they ever announced their "plan."
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Fantasea said:
The retirement plan enjoyed by Congress is almost identical to what the Bush Administration is proposing. If it's good enough for Congress, why isn't the plan good enough for its constituents?
The biggest bugaboo about SS is that the money has to come from somewhere. It's not about how the money is invested per se (it's invested in govt bonds which are safe until the USG defaults) but where does the money come from. If contributions to SS decrease dramatically then there's a huge shortfall of cash. That's the issue that being danced around.

I saw a poll once back in the day before I had internet, 96 or so that said that people of my generation were more likely to believe that extraterrestrials were visiting the Earth than they were to believe that they'd receive their alotted SS benefits.

The issue is that we entrusted a chunk of cash to politicians. We should've knwon that was a mistake right off the bat. Sure enough, they figured out to "borrow" from the fund to pay for today's expenses. It sure made the budget fiures look a lot better to the folks back in the metaphorical Peoria- as long as they didn't look too hard anyway.

I'm all for leaving me moreof my own money to invest on my own. I'm just not suire of how we as a nation're goinna cover our debts. We're not on the gold standard or silver standar anymore. All that there is backing the dollar these days is the "full faith and credit" of the US. If that goes, then there's no bottom in sight.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Simon W. Moon said:
The biggest bugaboo about SS is that the money has to come from somewhere. It's not about how the money is invested per se (it's invested in govt bonds which are safe until the USG defaults) but where does the money come from. If contributions to SS decrease dramatically then there's a huge shortfall of cash. That's the issue that being danced around.

I saw a poll once back in the day before I had internet, 96 or so that said that people of my generation were more likely to believe that extraterrestrials were visiting the Earth than they were to believe that they'd receive their alotted SS benefits.

The issue is that we entrusted a chunk of cash to politicians. We should've knwon that was a mistake right off the bat. Sure enough, they figured out to "borrow" from the fund to pay for today's expenses. It sure made the budget fiures look a lot better to the folks back in the metaphorical Peoria- as long as they didn't look too hard anyway.

I'm all for leaving me moreof my own money to invest on my own. I'm just not suire of how we as a nation're goinna cover our debts. We're not on the gold standard or silver standar anymore. All that there is backing the dollar these days is the "full faith and credit" of the US. If that goes, then there's no bottom in sight.
Social Security was set up as a "pay as you go" program. From day one, all social security taxes collected went into the general fund along with all other government receipts. There never was a 'chunk of cash'. It was immediately spent on whatever 'bills' the government was paying. The fact that there is a deficit confirms this.

While there were enough 'payers' contributing, the excess was enjoyed as fungible tax revenue. The problem, today, is that, as a source of revenue, social security taxes are shrinking, and will continue to shrink.

Moving the federal government out of the 'retirement funding' business is long overdue. Again, if a personal retirement plan is good enough for Congress, it's good enough for the rest of us.
 
Top Bottom