"Silly Social Security Thing"? (Democrats Too Busy To Work To Save Social Security)

Republican National Committee ^ | April 21, 2005

[RWR8189]

"SILLY SOCIAL SECURITY THING"? Democrats Too Busy To Work With President To Strengthen Social Security ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  

Democrats Have Other Priorities Than Social Security:

 

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) Said She's Got "More Important Things To Ask About Than This Silly Social Security Thing." "Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) managed to stir up some trouble last week at the Joint Economic Committee hearing chaired by Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.). Testifying before the committee was Harvey Rosen, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Sanchez was evidently fed up with the contents of the hearing. 'I've more important things to ask about than this silly Social Security thing,' she said." ("Capital Living," The Hill, 4/20/05)

 

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "Social Security Is A Problem, But It's Not In My Top Five ..." (Thomas M. DeFrank, "Party's Gotta Fight Back, Sez Hillary," New York Daily News, 4/12/05)

 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "[S]ocial Security Is Not In Crisis." (CBS's "Face The Nation," 4/10/05)

 

Instead, Democrats Choose To Stand In The Way Of Republican Attempts To Strengthen Social Security:

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "Has Ordered House Democrats To 'Oppose, Not Propose,' Changes To Social Security, According To A Well-Placed Democrat." (Jonathan Kaplan, "Dean Slams Bush On Town-Hall Meetings," The Hill, 3/10/05)

 

·        Pelosi Said Democrats "Are United" Against President's Social Security Plan. (David Espo, "Democrats: Social Security A Distraction," The Associated Press, 2/1/05)

 

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) Said President's Plan For Social Security Is "Dead." "Meanwhile, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee said Bush's plan to overhaul the Social Security system is 'dead,' even before the proposal has been sent to Congress.  At the start of the panel's hearing with Snow, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., questioned the seriousness of the White House's commitment to changing the nation's retirement system.  'If you were serious about it, you would have included it in the budget,' Rangel said." (William L. Watts and Greg Robb, "Social Security Looms Over Budget," CBS MarketWatch, 2/9/05)

 

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): "We've Got To Fight On This Issue, And We've Got To Wage An Aggressive Fight." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "For Democrats, Social Security Becomes A Defining Test," The New York Times, 1/29/05)

 

Democrat Aides Admit Party Has No Plan For Social Security, And Will Not Offer Any. "House and Senate Democrats have decided against introducing an alternative Social Security reform plan yet, preferring instead to focus attention and criticism on President Bush's proposals, according to a number of senior Democratic aides." (Patrick O'Connor, "For Now, Dems Will Offer No Social Security Reforms," The Hill, 2/8/05)

 

Even Democrats Say Their Party Has To Stand For Something:

 

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM):  "We Can't Just Attack The President At Every Turn ... We Have Got To Stand For Something." (Tom Verdin, "N.M. Gov.: Dems Must Connect With Values," The Associated Press, 4/19/05)

 

Democrat Strategists James Carville And Paul Begala: "[T]he Biggest Problem The Democrats Face Is Not That They're Seen As Standing For Too Many Liberal Issues Or Standing For Too Many Conservative Positions. It's That Democrats Aren't Seen As Standing For Anything." (James Carville and Paul Begala, Op-Ed, "Democrats Must Change Everything," USA Today, 4/20/05) 

[Choose Ye This Day]

[Choose Ye This Day]

[Choose Ye This Day]

I actually LOVE this. Hasn't the Democrat Party always relied on young people as a solid part of their base? Not if they keep up this "silly" nonsense.

I enroll people in their company retirement plans. Every week, I speak to dozens to hundreds of workers, of all ages. One of the first things I ask them is "Why do we need to save for retirement? Why do we have 401(k) plans?"

The first answer I get, almost every meeting, is: "Because Social Security won't be there!"

I have talked with thousands of real Americans over the past couple of years about their retirement, and I have not met a single person under the age of 40 who has ANY confidence that they will ever see a DIME from Social Security, unless something drastic is done.

If the Republicans would do a better job with SS reform, we could make huge inroads with the 18-30 crowd, even more than what we already have.

[conservlib]

Saving SS cannot be done by privatization, that will only enrich the stock brokering firms. The SS funds collected need to be managed by professionals just as all RETIRMENT FUNDS are managed. Now, if the government is going to collect the funds, and use it on other programs, the government will be breaking the laws! Private companies pension funds are always protected from the dirty hands of top company managers! That should be applied to our government as well. If we don't collect enough money to give the promised benefits, then it is soooo simple; collect more money or give less benefits. Einstein couldn't come up with a simpler solution.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Privatization is an important step in SS reform. It will not fix the entire problem, but it will give us a much better rate of return than we now have.

They can use dirt-cheap index funds, just like the TSP program uses.

I completely agree with you about the government not being able to use SS receipts on other current obligations. Hands off.

[conservlib]

Privatization is an important step in SS reform. It will not fix the entire problem, but it will give us a much better rate of return than we now have

That is the reason this SS "privatization" is NONSENSE! If you were a retired rail road employee, or a retired teacher you will be getting a pension from a professionally managed funds. There is nothing in the laws that said that the government cannot hire a dude who has managed the firemen, the policemen, or the teachers retirement funds successfully. Retirement funds cannot be spent on purchasing puts on commodities! These funds are typically manged safely. It would be a mistake for you or me to expect 20% return, if the index funds are returning say 5%. You may invest your discretionary money in such risky investment, but not your retirement money.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Sanchez is only in office thanks to massive vote fraud and help from illegal aliens.

Typical left coast liberal - I got mine, screw the rest of the masses.

[econ_grad]

There is nothing in the laws that said that the government cannot hire a dude who has managed the firemen, the policemen, or the teachers retirement funds successfully.

This would be a recipe for further corruption. And of course the govt would have a monopoly on this and will not be accountable for any screw-ups.

[conservlib]

Now if you are a firemen, would you be bitching about the return on capital that your firemen funds are getting?

The way these things rruns is by having an elected board from the employee/retirees to oversee the professional money manager performance. They also have guidelines, 50% in government bonds, 20% in corporate bonds, 10% in utility stocks, 10% in blue chips, and so on. SAFE INVESTMENT PORTOFOLIO! If you let Joe blow do his own investment, and he wants to be FREE to do what he wants, he will gamble, and 90% will lose, and then come back crying to the government to feed him.

[MurryMom]

Dubya still hasn't explained why any of the Dems quoted above is incorrect. His recently announced extension of the SS Bamboozlepalooza Tour is an absolutely baffling thing to do. By all objective standards, the Tour has been a catastrophic failure. He's induced zero new legislators to back his agenda. Privatization's numbers have sunk further in the polls. Indeed, the best polling evidence available suggests that the more people focus on the issue, the less they like the president's ideas. Even worse, we're now seeing clear signs that pushing privatization is driving down the GOP's overall level of support with key constituency groups like senior citizens and rural people, both groups that backed Bush in '04 on cultural grounds and are now being driven back into the Democrats' arms.

Frankly, Bush has won enough battles over the years that I have trouble believing his team would do anything as dumb as a Tour extension clearly seems to be. Maybe they've got some trick up their sleeve so brilliant that I can't grasp it. Certainly if there's a trick here I'm not seeing what it's supposed to be.

Somebody please explain why anything the Dems said is not correct, and what the Rovemeister has up his sleeve this time. Thank you.

[television is just wrong]

Social Security benefits are being collected by immigrants who have never worked a day in this country. Worked in their own country, bringing their work record here, and receiving FULL Benefits.

That is why the Social Security system is going defunct. NON citizens are receiving benefits. This is not what the system is set up for, but it has been changed and it is legal. All these people receiving benefits is why everyone born after 1950 will not be receiving their money.