• 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.

Democrats must win war of words about Social Security

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
If the debate concerning Social Security starts and ends within the realm of PENSION and INVESTMENT , the Republicans can not and will not lose on this issue. As long as President Bush speaks in a market-language of changing from a "defined benefit" to a "defined contribution" plan we are heading for another losing battle similar to the Tax Cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003, War in Iraq, and others.

Democrats must re-establish the correct notion that Social Security is an Insurance program, not a retirement plan.

Proponents of private accounts are trying to use many American's poor saving habits coupled with their concurrent desire to be wealthy, as a vehicle to usher in "forced" savings through private accounts in Social Security.

They should be stopped.


Democrats should not only oppose these urges to privatize S.S., but also offer a long-term solution to any financial problems with the program.

see the rest at:
http://www.newliberals.org

Each day a person totally vested in the Social Security program goes to work they are in fact protected from disaster striking.

These protections include disability programs, spousal and family beneifts, and survivor benefits especially for children under 18 and older people.

So at least part of the F.I.C.A. tax that some are using to establish these financial statements that S.S. is a bad investment, are clearly premium payments for disability or disaster. As with all insurance,

WE HOPE THAT THE MONEY IS SPENT WITHOUT A RETURN.

Using an analogy of automobile insurance, a person who pays 30 years of insurance premiums and never has had an accident/incident could feel he wasted 30 years of potential investment or spending money...

We shouldn't view it as an outrage if someone is fortunate enough to never need to collect on their policy, and pronounce that's he's been ripped off. That would be a ridiculous way of having the tail wag the dog. Yet this is precisely what the Republicans are doing now as they ignore the insurance componet of S.S. and the potential benefits that workers would get in a crisis.

Concerning actual retirement, again S.S. was designed as a resource of last resort...

WE SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF OUR LAST RESORT.

Here's what we should do:

BENEFIT ADJUSTMENTS

To fix any shortfalls in the sytem: offer workers 50 and under a series of choices that would range from a cut in their taxes of 3 percentage points to an increase of 3 percentage points. Depending on the choice, the benefits would be adjusted.]

This would be similar to the graduated benefit structure currently in place based on retirement age. if a worker retires at 62 , 65, 67, 70, the benefits are differentiated accordingly...

It is important for us to have an owenership society, where as many as possible feel they are valuable members...

There must be limits to our zeal for markets and individualism set by a wise, and flexible federal government.

Democrats must always be the party of smart government, and yet remain progressive in our offering solutions that fit the 21st century.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again
http://www.newliberals.org
 
Top Bottom