Posted on 04/30/2005 8:13:31 PM PDT by marylandrepub1
DEMOCRAT REP. JIM MORAN (VA) ON BUSH PRESS CONFERENCE: First of all, Social Security is a national insurance system. It's not an investment account. We need a national insurance system. And I think what President Bush is going to do is to means test it, which on the face of it makes a lot of sense, except that it will lose the political support of the people who have the power and the influence in this country. The reason Social Security is such a popular topic now is that everybody participates. If he cuts the benefits for the middle class and upper class by 40%, which is what this plan entails, fewer people will really care what happens to Social Security, and that's not in anybody's interests.
The Goldman-Sachs economist just estimated that Social Security will earn about 3.3%. It's actually earning over 7% per year now, but it will earn about 3.3%, which is as much as they estimate the stock market is going to be earning on average over that period of time.
(Excerpt) Read more at democracynow.org ...
1) The democrats are opposed to Bush cutting the rate of growth of SS benefits for 'the rich'. Yet in 1993 the Democrats alone voted for and passed an increase of the federal income tax on SS benefits . So they won't cut our benefits (sounds good) because they want us addicted to them, but at the same time will take those same benefits away from us and put them in general revenue in the form of tax increases. Even when they try to sound like they are fighting for us it turns out to be a big con. Understand what they are doing here!! These people are evil!
2) "It's actually earning over 7% per year now", What ????!!! Don't the feds just spend the money as it comes in? Don't these socialist feds have a clue what the meaning of 'earn' is?
I cannot put into words what I think of these socialist libs!
Bush needs to give up on this. It's hopeless, and it's costing GOP support.
Rope a dope...
You're a Dem, right? If you're going to lose anyway, you cut your losses, and hope to fight another day.
Moran's argument is actually a standard argument Democrats use for all of government spending. They want to spend as much as possible, giving as many americans as possible as much as they possibly can using their own tax dollars.
Because the more people "get" from government, the more they buy into the government runnning their lives.
The idea that Social Security is popular is itself a myth.
SS is a lose-lose for republicans. But means testing it and turning it into welfare (as unfair as that seems to us who are being shafted) is probably our best bet on getting rid of it. This interview is proof.
Means testing did not kill the income tax. Why would it end social security? Most Americans favor means testing.
"They want to spend as much as possible, giving as many americans as possible as much as they possibly can using their own tax dollars. Because the more people "get" from government, the more they buy into the government runnning their lives. "
Yes!!! I couldn't put it better myself. Get us addicted to a portion of our own money. It's so obvious from Moran's interview here what they are up to. I wish more people could hear him.
I see your point and agree that people are for means testing(actually I have found they are for taxing it). But as Dem Moran points out, as the middle class gets less and less from SS, they lose the addiction. And they will be likely to ignore or support cuts, unlike now. The mission is to convince everyone what we already know, it's welfare.
SS is a win win for democrats. All they have to do is sit on the side and call for tax increases on the rich, and as time goes on , slowly classify , more and more people as rich, and Republicans lose.
Perhaps Bush is trying to use the 'means testing' argument as a means of pre-empting Democrats, whose plans otherwise amount to doing the same thing. Bush can offer private accounts as a solution to middle class people who would otherwise object to the means-testing notion.
Let the Dems try to pass a tax increase to fix this problem. They will quickly find themselves in the soup lines.
The problem is that the tax increase that would be needed would be truly horendous.
Of course, if it had been done while Clinton was President, it could have been done quite easily. But Clinton deep-sixed social security reform.
Bush is using the means testing argument for one reason: Because the ONLY way SS is going to be privatized as it should be, as FDR wanted it, even (personal accounts), is by the death of a thousand cuts. A little here, a little there, whittling away. Just like the libs and gay marriage, it's the only way fraidy voters will EVER agree to change, good or bad.
Saw Lib Nancy Pelosi (CA-SF)on ABC 'This week'. She attacked Bush for proposed cuts in middle class SS benefits. George asked her repeatedly for her plan, she said over and over dems plan is to pay back the trust fund like Clinton did(didn't Clinton just spend the SS surplus???). What is Nancy talking about??? Dems(her and BC) raised taxes on SS benefits in 1993, in effect cutting the benefits, but putting the money in the general fund. What are democrats (including Pelosi on this program) saying they are for? Raising taxes only!! So they will protect our SS benefits but will take them away at the same time in general revenue taxes to pay back the SS trust fund. BTW: No one is asked them about this contradiction, they get off scot-free.
Eleanor Cliff is howling about Bush cutting middle class SS benefit cuts right now(McLaughlin Group). No one is calling her on this.
Thanks so much for starting my day with the images of Eleanor Clift and Nancy Pelosi in my head. No matter what happens the rest of the day, things can only get better.
You are exactly right. We can't kill the whole thing atm, because all the people receiving would rally around the dems. However divide and conquer with means testing.. And just with the rate of growth, not even actual cuts.. And we at least get something.
Then once we've weened a few more people off, we can push again. As we also work on other ways to cut it down, like tying it to the cost of goods instead of wages. The dems pushed big government on us after Roosevelt one little step at a time. Whatever they could get away with, and whatever area was popular that is what they pushed for.
We have to use the same strategy back against them. Including the divide and conquer. The poor now will feel safe with our plan, while the middle class and rich hate social security anyway.
It's hopeless. It can't be fixed. Clinton should have done it. There is no way to fix it now.
Don't you get it... it's not an "investment account", but look at this amazing return on investment. The beauty of modern liberalism is being able to contridict yourself in the same breath and not have anyone in the media call you on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.