Dems should move to actively support raising soc sec cap

[amjucsc]

IMHO it's very important for the Dems to come up with a valid alternative to Bush's private accounts; while I doubt that Bush will be able to convince the country to accept private accounts, I suspect that he will succeed in convincing the American people that 'something' must be done to fix Social Security.

This is a golden opportunity for Dems, as it appears that one solution which most Americans may be willing to accept-- raising the $90,000 cap on income on which payroll taxes are collected-- is something that would probably be anathema to a lot of Republicans. We would do well to push for a lifting of the income caps, and accuse Congressional Reps of 'obstructionism' and 'not taking the problem seriously' when they attempt to block a tax hike for millionaires (er, making sure that 'everyone pays their fair share'). Hell we might even be able to score political points by accusing them of 'blocking President Bush's agenda'. Now wouldn't that be hilarious?

Anyway if we we can convince the American people that the Congressional Republicans 'don't take this extremely important problem seriously' we could stand to win big gains in the 2006 elections.

I also recommend reading Joe Conason's most recent Salon article on Bush privatization push:

<http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/03/05/social_security/index.html>

Excerpt: While most Americans worry that the Social Security system is in fiscal peril, their preferred solutions differ sharply from those offered by the president and his party. Not only do voters reject privatization but they also want no part of benefit cutbacks, revised wage and price indexes, or delayed retirement. Instead they strongly favor what the president, until two weeks ago, vowed he would never allow: increase the cap on Social Security taxes above the current $90,000 level.

[Warpy]

1. Simply raising the cap won't do any good

while all overpayments are being robbed to disguise the DISASTER that Fuckwit's tax giveaway to his own class have caused.

Any hike in FICA, either in a fraction of a percent or through the removal of that laughably low earnings cap, MUST be accompanied by legislation preventing Congress from touching the fund, period.

Otherwise, they'll just tax the upper middle class and rob THAT, too.

If people had any idea of the real cost of those tax cuts to fat pigs who didn't need them, they'd be out in the streets raising hell.

[Joey Liberal]

13. Democrats Need to be Tough on SS

The Democrats in Congress need to have better answers when questioned about Social Security. Nancy Pelosi had a hard time responding to questions about SS today. She was asked what the Democrats plan is? She stumbled big time. What she should have said is this: Democrats want to fund Social Security - not change it.

Bush has left this country in a big hole with his tax cuts and spending increases. And then he expects the Democrats to come up with a better plan.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Amen to your last sentence, Warpy!

"If people had any idea of the real cost of those tax cuts to fat pigs who didn't need them, they'd be out in the streets raising hell."

[BeFree]

2. No way

The dems shouldn't do anything but say: Social Security is fine, it has enriched the lives and well being of millions of Senior Americans, and messing around with it, as bush is doing, is the wrong course.

___________________

Now then, if Kerry were rightfully seated in the White House.....

[the_spectator]

3. I want to see them go futher than that.

There IS no "Social Security trust fund." All the money goes into the general fund, and is spend accordingly. FICA is nothing more nor less, at this point, than a massively regressive form of taxation. I want to see the Democrats tell the truth about this. I want them to propose getting rid of the whole sorry shell game, eliminate FICA completely, and replace it instead with a revenue-neutral increase in income taxes. We could still give people their Social Security pension money, but it would be a HUGE load off the backs of middle class working people.

[Warpy]

5. The point of Social Security was that it was INSURANCE

and it worked very well that way until Lyndon Johnson begged Congress to allow the very small overpayment be used to defray the cost of the Vietnam War.

Congress, sensing a gold mine that could be used for pork projects for their contributors, neglected to make the practice die when the war did.

Enter Reagan, who raised FICA SIX TIMES, and continued the practice of robbing it.

We need to get Congress's mitts off this. Anything they control will be underfunded and/or robbed. This is OURS. We need to keep it away from those THIEVES in 3 piece suits who have gotten too fat and comfy robbing the poor to disguise what fattening the rich has done to us.

[the_spectator]

7. But I don't think we CAN get their mitts off this -

They're Congress - they're the legislative branch. To really get Social Security into a "lock box" we'd need a Constitutional amendment.

And yes, Reagan was the worst offender in terms of FICA. I should try to find something i read just a few days ago from a major Republican who straight up admitted that FICA at this point is just regressive taxation. Then he and his Repub inteviewer basically congratulated each other on their good luck that the Democrats don't argue this issue.

[Just Me]

6. Who told you that? Moreover, what better "debtor" than the U.S. treasury?

The U.S., as a government, is constitutionally REQUIRED to be absolutely responsible for its debt. Of course, we have neoCONs in charge, who HATE HATE HATE the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

They are the greediest, most corrupt, totalitarians on the face of the earth,...willing to usurp every penny from their people in order to fill the pockets of their "utopian" cronies and fuck 95% of the American people.

Imagine that.

Wouldn't that be the absolute worst form of tyranny, EVER?!?!?!?!

[DaveinMD]

4. we should

eliminate the cap completely and lower the payroll tax rate. This would mean a tax cut for mmost families.

[wisteria]

8. Republican's should be the only ones suggesting raising the cap.

This will be viewed as a tax increase and if we support it we will be again viewed as the "tax and spend Liberals". This is what the Republicans want us to do, so they don't have to shoulder the responsibility and possible backlash from this decision. I do agree, we need some ideas of our own. I believe the Senate has sent a letter to Bush laying out several possible negotiating points.

[Darkhawk32]

9. Bingo! Let the Repugs hang themselves with this. n/t

[Just Me]

12. What? Since when is it bad to request the "rich" to sacrifice, too?

I mean, damn,...would they be so filthy rich but for their existence in capitalistic America!!!!

They have to sacrifice and pay for their "FREEDOM TO PROFITEER",...don't they?

:shrug:

[Clarkie1]

10. Agreed, with one caveat.

The self-employed should be exempt, because otherwise they would be forced to pay the individual contribution in addition to the employer contribution (it would be a 12.4% tax increase for them).

[carpetbagger]

11. No, let them just twist in the wind.

Attack, attack, attack. And remind them that we used to have budget surpluses and a rising standard of living which was fixing the minor problems that are down the road.

The GOP didn't come to power in Congress in 1994 by proposing an alternative health care plan.

[dolstein]

14. We need to keep the government's hands off the SS surplus

And sorry, requiring that the social security surplus be invested in treasury securities don't do the trick if the government is going to have to borrow money in order to redeem those securities 40 years from now.

We should require that social security surpluses be invested in a diversified pool of AAA rated private obligations.

[Enquiringkitty]

16. I agree but also limit retirement income to qualify for funds. That would

be many millions in the fund. Would slow the loss due to less people paying in and give more time to address the other aspects.