Why are our Democrats joining with right wing groups and Republicans on Social Security?

[madfloridian]

PPI's Tom Carper joins with Lindsey Graham to fix Social Security.What kind of hell of a combination is that? Don't we have enough Democrats who can band together to solve our problems?


The Progressive Policy Institute, The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, The Heritage Foundation, and The New America Foundation co-hosted this policy forum

This is how they talked about Social Security. I won't even ask why they are working with Lindsey Graham and other Republicans instead of working with progressive groups.

“Everybody’s living like a senator . . . forever,” Graham said at a meeting on the U.S. fiscal crisis

So he recommends they raise the age to fix Social Security. I think it is 67 right now, isn't it?

The age for qualifying for Social Security benefits may need to be raised to reflect longer American life spans, Sens. Thomas R. Carper D-Del., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said at a meeting yesterday on the federal budget. When Social Security was created in 1935, a 65-year-old could expect to live another 12.5 years. Today’s 65-year-olds often have another 17.5 years left, according to Social Security’s Web site. Some Americans will go on for years way beyond that projection, said Graham, whose predecessor, Strom Thurmond, died in 2003 at 100.

“Everybody’s living like a senator . . . forever,” Graham said at a meeting on the U.S. fiscal crisis, sponsored by the nonprofit policy groups, including the conservative Heritage Foundation, and liberal Progressive Policy Institute. “That’s good news.”

The bad news is that Congress needs to take a hard look at Social Security and figure out how to accommodate an increasingly healthy crop of older Americans, without putting excess burdens on younger citizens, the senators and other panelist said. Carper and Graham each cited the work that then-President Ronald Reagan and then-Speaker Tip O’Neill did together in the 1980s to stave off a Social Security crisis as a model for further reform efforts. Democrats and Republicans will need to cooperate again to tackle Social Security, and they will need to make tough choices, the two senators said. Reagan and O’Neill “told their bases things that they didn’t want to hear,” Graham said, adding that that kind of candor will be needed again.

Reagan...isn't he the one who said the worst words were " I am from the government, and I'm here to help you"? That Reagan?

Reagan, who had very bad thoughts about Social Security:

Wanted to privatize retirement, but never had opportunity

Social Security was always more tar baby than Teflon for Reagan. He told me when he was governor of California that Barry Goldwater’s campaign had demonstrated that Republicans could not safely discuss the issue, but Reagan could not stop talking about it. I have no doubt that he shared the view that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme. He was intrigued with the idea of a voluntary plan that would have allowed workers to make their own investments. This idea would have undermined the system by depriving Social Security of the contributions of millions of the nation’s highest-paid workers. In 1976 he said that Social Security “could have made a provision for those who could do better on their own” and suggested that such recipients be allowed to leave the program upon showing that “they had made provisions for their non-earning years.” This declaration sent shudders through the ranks of Reagan’s political advisers, who knew his true feelings about Social Security.“
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 243 Jul 2, 1991

Oh, that sounds just like the personal accounts, private accounts...American Dream accounts. But if I say they will undermine Social Security, the wolf pack jumps me. Of course it will undermine it. It is meant to do so.

Didn't we spend the year before we got the majority in Congress last year saying that Social Security was fine and didn't need fixing? I thought so. But now that we are elected, we are going to join with of all people, Lindsey Graham, and of all groups..the Heritage Foundation....to fix what we said wasn't broken.

I remember a figure Lindsey Graham once quoted about where he would draw the line for change. It stuck with me because of the way he talked about $30,000 as though it were a income that was sufficient.

Increases in Social Security's retirement benefits, meanwhile, have long been tied to wages, which rise faster than prices. Graham would leave that system intact for people earning less than $30,000 a year. Higher-income retirees would have growth in benefits tied to inflation, which would shrink senior citizens' checks by billions of dollars.

Bound to irk all sides

My head is spinning. In what world is $30,000 a dividing line between lower and upper income?

To add to the confusion, Hillary says it isn't broken, and she doesn't want to talk about it....and then puts out a policy paper at the DLC, partner to the PPI, called the American Dream Initiative which says it needs fixing.



American Dream Initiative ready for download from DLC

An aging society has no choice but to act. Just as FDR ushered in the Social Security system in the last century, we need to make new provisions for economic security in this one. That means asking every employer to give workers the chance to save, and challenging every American to make the most of it.

So why not just leave it alone? Instead her policy says to set up retirement accounts for workers. It sounds so much like Social Security that it is confusing my poor mind.

American Dream Accounts. Americans deserve to know that a lifetime of work will ensure a secure retirement. We need a new approach that requires every employer to open a retirement account for every worker; enrolls workers automatically unless they opt out; increases their contribution automatically over time unless they direct otherwise; gives employees the advice and guidance to allow them to invest wisely; and enables workers to take their pensions with them when they change jobs

Why spend all that money on personal accounts when we could fix Social Security with it, and make it stable....unless it is that away already.

[billyoc]

1. PPI

'nuff said.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Ding, ding, ding! We got a winner here!

PPI's neolibs are the flip side of the PNAC neocon coin. They both serve corporate interests and they both advocate privatization and using the military as the enforcer of globalism.

[...of J.Temperance]

155. More absolutely silly comments from you

You know nothing about the PPI it's perfectly obvious from other comments you've made.

[antigop]

20. And where is Wall Street money going?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ajK...

[Jackpine Radical]

69. Perzackly.

The Regressive Policy Institute strikes again.

[w4rma]

189. PPI is the think tank part of the DLC which is a non-partisan lobbying organization for big business

And Carper is one of the biggest DLC DINOs in Congress.

[annabanana]

2. PPI is PNAC in a blue shirt instead of a red one.... . . . n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

159. Stop making such absurd comments

You really ought to read more about the PPI....because your comment there is SO absurd that it's not even amusing.

[papau]

4. Soc Sec is stable, but increasing the full benefits age & decreasing benefits paid at 62 makes sense

given that the age 67 to 70 change would start in 2030 and go over 36 years to increase the age 67 by the full 36 months needed to get to age 70.

Increasing life span along with the planet unable to support the population growth we have had of late make the current projections (and projection number 3 with its "optimistic" 1.6% GDP growth in the out years does show no problem) a bit iffy.

It is prudent to put the age change in the law now and, if we get to the point that SS is generating massive surpluses, to take it out later if we want to raise benefits that way rather than using a simple percentage increase.

The American Dream Accounts (as proposed in 98 by Bill Clinton and now by Hillary) is a liberal alternative to stealing funds from SS for individual accounts so as to destroy SS. It is not the Reagan or GOP concept.

It is a mandatory 401k for everyone, with funding obtained from new money.

It is in effect a new entitlement benefit paid for via employer and employee contributions. I do not see why any liberal or progressive or working man advocate would be against it.

I do agree that working with the GOP on Social Security or Health care is a situation where you count your fingers after every handshake. But if the above is the only thing to come out of this effort, I have no problem sharing the credit with moderate GOPers.

I just wonder if there are really any "moderate" GOPers, and if they will be satisfied with the two reasonable suggestions above - and nothing more.

In any case the one GOP idea that is mentioned -to cut benefits drastically over time by reducing the standard of living of the aged below its current relationship to the standard of living for the working population - needs to be fought. Replacing the indexing by the wage index (which maintains the standard of living relationship between workers and non-workers) with an indexing by the CPI (which is always lower than the wage index as the country's standard of living improves decade over decade) is an evil that must be fought. If Senator Tom Carper is being used as a front man to sell this evil, he is a fool.

[Mojorabbit]

10. We have a small

business with three employees. No way we can afford this at least at a level which will make a difference to them.

[papau]

35. The employer level is 1% of wages - but it may be zero in final legislation n/t

[antigop]

17. I'm a progressive and I'm against it -- we don't need defined contribution programs

We need defined benefit -- like old traditional pensions and Social Security.

This is just a giveaway to Wall Street and an attempt to get more money into the stock market.

<edit to add> It is much more efficient to provide retirement benefits on a defined benefit basis --an actuarially based system with a trust fund -- than to provide retirement benefits on a defined contribution basis.

Just ask any actuary.

[cuke]

23. The money can go into bonds or cash equivalents

If you know enough to recognize the difference between defined benefits and defined contributions, you should be familiar with the different investment options that are available

[antigop]

24. Nope, sorry. you miss the point. n/t

[cuke]

26. I understand it fine

The money can go into CD or into an interest bearing savings acct

[antigop]

27. Nope. You still don't. Sorry. wrong answer...I'm not playing tonight. I'm busy. I got work to do

<edit to add> Go ask an actuary.

[cuke]

31. You got nothing

My SIL's BIL is an actuary. I've already discussed this with him many times. And I worked for banks that handled similar accts for over 10 years.

You are wrong. Even SS isn't a defined benefit program (at least for most people). It's based on one's earnings (or the earnings of one's spouse/parent in the case of a minor, etc)

Let me know when you're able to post any facts

[davekriss]

113. Nonsense, SS operates as a defined benefit, not...

...as a defined contribution. Just as with traditional defined benefit pensions, the benefit does vary depending on years of service and earnings. The difference between "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" is with the former you get your benefit regardless of the health of the underlying finances, and with the latter whether or not you get your full benefit (or are rewarded with higher benefit) depends on your luck in the casino of investing.

[cuke]

142. You're right

I screwed up

[Lasher]

154. I respect that.

I wish more people were man or woman enough to admit when they are wrong. It is good to see this virtue still lives.

Lasher

[papau]

39. You are correct as to how this would invest - but as an income replacement program to keep seniors

off the streets and out of the welfare lines, a defined benefit plan based on replacement of salary works much better.

But even in the good old union power days we'd discuss the 3 legged stool with Soc Sec for 1/3rd, your employers defined benefit plan for 1/3rd and your savings for 1/3rd of your income for each year alive and retired. New in our world it is the savings part becoming 401k/IRA for those that save, and the defined benefit plan either being totally dropped, or being dropped with am employer contribution to the 401k being added. As the cost of the dropped defined benefit plan was usually around 8%, and the match on the 401k usually being 3 to 4 %, the employer has cut your wage by 4% when he drops his defined benefit plan.

[cuke]

41. I have no doubt that defined benefit programs are a safer investment

but if the concern is expense, as the OP suggests, then defined benefit plans are NOT the way to go.

And what you said about the 3-legged stool, and the replacement of defined benefit pensions (dbp's) with 401k type pgms is also spot on. However, the assumption of the 3-legged stool assumed that the defined benefit program would come from the employer and not the govt, and this was specifically because of the expense.

The reason why dbp's have been replaced is IMO due to the waning power of unions. The lack of negotiating power in the absence of unions is what gives employers the ability to do so

on edit: And all of this has little to do with the OPs premise because it's premise is gravely inaccurate. None of the money to fund these new accts will come from FICA. It's just another 401k type pgm that is susbsidized by the govt and employers and is completely voluntary on the part of the employee

[papau]

43. I agree on all your points - but in the world limited to what is possible now -this seems OK n/t

n/t

[cuke]

44. I added some more on edit that I think you missed. Here it is

on edit: And all of this has little to do with the OPs premise because it's premise is gravely inaccurate. None of the money to fund these new accts will come from FICA. It's just another 401k type pgm that is susbsidized by the govt and employers and is completely voluntary on the part of the employee

[papau]

60. True n/t

[papau]

36. very true - but not the way our non-union world is going n/t

[antigop]

50. And whose fault is that? And maybe you need to educate someone on this thread...

as to what a "defined benefit" pension is as opposed to a "defined contribution".

[cuke]

56. Employers, Republicans, Reagan, Bush, *

I'll defer to papua for a definition of dbp's vs dcp's

[papau]

57. No problem - Defined Benefit is an obligation to replace a given amount of your wage with

a pension - the employer takes on all investment risk (and reward if the market does really well) and you know when you start the job how much of your standard of living will be covered by the employers pension plan.

A defined contribution plan - and an undefined contribution plan like 401k/IRA - give you all the risk - if investments go to hell in a handbasket there is no employer to make up the difference - but the GOP greed sale is that get lucky in the market and you keep your lucky results all to yourself. The size of the savings needed to replace the defined benefit plan requires a massive change in worker saving habits - and that is not happening because the 5% of salary cut the employer gets by killing the defined benefit plan and "replacing" it with a larger 401k match where the match is 4% (say defined benefit pension cost of 9% less 4% giving a 5% saving to the employer) is not going back to the worker in the form of 5% higher wages. The worker has to decrease his standard of living so as to fund the retirement he once got from his employer.

But as the GOP say - be greedy - your 401k investment selection might do fantastic in the market and you will have all that money - and everyone likes to gamble - right?

Killing defined benefit plans is the usual slick GOP/corporate/rich person screwing of the worker - yet no one joins unions - amazing.

[antigop]

58. Thank you. It's obvious that there is a lack of understanding on this thread. n/t

[antigop]

59. And you forgot about the Dems being complicit in killing db plans. n/t

[dugggy]

104. My 401-k account is yielding more than 3 times my social security

check. And I contributed about the same amounts to each.
My 401-k is all in stocks.

[davekriss]

114. Lucky you

You had the discretionary income to contribute to your 401k and you had a job that offered one. Not everyone is so lucky.

[dugggy]

141. I just lived below my means and forced myself to save...

I lived in cheap apartments and bought older cars.
I did not go on an expensive vacation until I was 48.
I forced myself to put away 15% of my paycheck every
time I got paid.

People earning much more than me have saved much less
for their personal retirement. That is their fault.

[davekriss]

144. What if...

...just saying, what if that person earning much more than you faced extraordinary medical bills, forcing suspension of his/her contributions to the 401k, then got layed off and had to tap into retirement saving to pay for those life-sustaining medicines. So after a little while they had no retirement savings. Is that their fault?

That's why we have a social security program, to establish an income floor under which no citizen can fall should the wheel of fortune deal them bad blows. That security program should be bolstered, not weakened.

[dugggy]

147. You are talking about perhaps 5% of the population?

Unemployment hovers around 4% now-a-days. Assuming it is undercounted,
atleast 90% of the people are working. And 95% of those do not have
serious medical bills into their 20's, 30's and 40's. But the American
lifestyle is...consume...consume...consume.

Have you seen all the McMansions going up everywhere? How about those
shiny new cars everyone drives? I hardly ever see a car more than 10
years old on the streets. There are 100 NEW restaurants within 15 miles
from my house in the last 8 years. And they are usually packed. We had
to wait 30 minutes to get a table at a local TGIF on saturday evening.

Yes, there are some unfortunate few who can not save. But please don't
think most people are in that category. Just the opposite.

Rather than have a social security for everyone, it could be limited to
those who have serious health problems, had very low lifetime earnings,
etc. I am all for being compassionate. But if you earned above national
avaerage and had no serious medical bills, you don't deserve a handout.

[papau]

131. no one can calculate a "yield" for Soc Sec since you do not get a lump sum - you

get an annuity for life with CPI protection - and that type of annuity is not available in the insurance marketplace.

If anyone told you that your "401-k account is yielding more than 3 times your social security" change financial advisors unless they are a relative - if a relative suggested that "yield" comparison, the relative is talking about a non-CPI annuity being compared to the CPI indexed Soc Sec annuity, Just note that the non-cpi annuity is a today quote of a different annuity that is guaranteed to not be priced the same today as when you retire. For the sake of peace in the family don't blurt out that you are tired of hearing GOP bullshit. Be nice

[dugggy]

139. The CPI protection with SocSec is total bullcrap.....

What we seniors buy such as food, gasoline, medical bills, insurance
and taxes we pay such as real estate tax are all going UP much much
much faster than the bull shit CPI numbers your govermint is throwing at us.

May be they include computers & clothes & ipods in the CPI which we
don't buy many.

As for the yield on my stocks, I re-balance every year between Money market
fund, gold ETF's and S&P500 index funds. I started putting money in my
personal retirement acconts (10 to 15% of my earnings) when I was 25
and 42 years later that value has grown enormously. I take money out of
those accounts as needed to pay bills. And I am taking out 3 times my
social security checks and my account is not degrading at a fast rate.
I should be able to cash out for 20 to 25 years before the accounts zero
out. Well, my social security checks will also zero out when I kick the
bucket!

So all I am comparing is what I put into social security for 40 years and
what I put into my personal retirement accounts and I am getting more out
of my personal accounts. Much more.

Can every one do their own personal money management? I don't think so. But
what I did is not all that complicated. The government can easily set up such
an account for those who wish to participate.

[papau]

188. There is no CPI - of any sort - in the private annuity market - but you are indeed correct

that the CPI calculation understates the real CPI for every one, and the understatement is largest for the lower income - which means most of the aged.

Folks note that the elderly are on welfare to a lesser extent than the general population - and claim that proves their "wealth" - forgetting that the elderly must LIVE OFF that savings for the rest of their life.

If we do totally move to self-financed retirement - it would be wise for the corporations to give each employee and retiree 3 packs of cigarettes each day, so as to keep the elderly from moving to the welfare rolls as they age.

As to "So all I am comparing is what I put into social security for 40 years and what I put into my personal retirement accounts and I am getting more out
of my personal accounts. Much more." since you can't turn the Soc Sec payment into a lump sum via any market value of the payment - there being no CPI protected annuity that adds a 50% joint account should you ever remarry, covers disability of any adopted or late in marriage kids, etc. in the market - you must be falling for the GOP analyses that ignore all that and pretend that all you get is an insurance company annuity.

In any case on a generational basis the boomers are getting a little less than what they paid in - the ratio being about a max of 106%. This is necessary because the 1939 start up crowd paid near zero for a tiny benefit of much larger value that barely allow the majority the dignity of not going on welfare - they got more than they paid in. Future generations will get 100% of what they paid in, more or less (assuming their is no drastic change in the birth or death rate).

[dugggy]

194. My main point is not privatizing entire socsec, but rather

emphasizing what personal savings can achieve. And I am
living proof that it has paid more than my return on
social security taxes I paid over the years. Significantly more.

[antigop]

53. And thank you for agreeing with me about the "truth". n/t

[brokensymmetry]

37. I'm with you.

Defined contribution is fine...IF...yields meet expectations.

Sometimes, the train goes off the track. Sometimes, even
over extended periods of time, the yield does not meet
expectations.

Keep Social Security as it is. And for those who want
an IRA, then by all means - get one!

[cuke]

45. So do you oppose Social Security

It's not a defined benefit program

[davekriss]

115. Wrong, it operates as a defined benefit program

The difference between "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" is who owns the risk to maintain the earned benefit. The earned benefit will vary with a traditional pension depending on years of service and salary level. The worker on the plant floor who retires with 5 years of service gets much less than the department manager with 30 years of service -- i.e., the benefit will vary. But the risk to ensure the defined benefit is paid belongs to the employer, not the investment savvy of the worker or manager.

[cuke]

47. I disagree with two points. Otherwise, well done

For one thing, it will be a disaster for many to raise the eligibility age or penalize more for early retirement. Think of people who have jobs involving manual labor. How long are they expected to keep at that? We'd only be increasing the # of seniors with serious and expensive health problems. Where's the savings.

It is not mandatory. Employees can opt out, but opting in is the default

[papau]

51. Age 62 right to retire is maintained - but you get less - and your point is true that

seniors with health problems normally retire at 62 and are therefore harmed by the age increase.

But the otherside is of course the fact that Federal Government wants to obligate itself to only so many actual years of benefits - and by living longer one increases the number of years of benefits. There is no easy answer, but this once one is more gentle than others if we must do cost containment.

[cuke]

55. Fair enough

You've been doing an outstanding job. I can't expect we'll agree on everything, but it's obvious you know what you're talking about and your intentions are solid

[JDPriestly]

77. There is a huge catch. Yes, we live longer, but

it is next to impossible to get a decent job after you are 60. I lost a job due to my age. (My boss admitted it to me outright.) My husband also lost a job due,in part, to age discrimination by students who stated quite bluntly that he was "too old" to teach on his evaluations. It was not true. He managed to get a part-time job at another school, and his students and the administration love him. He just met up with some very prejudiced students and the administration bowed to the prejudice.

There are several reasons for the age discrimination. One is that our society worships youth and good looks, not wisdom and experience. A second is that people change as they age. Many people become somewhat more forgetful or may not learn as easily. Some actually become less flexible even cranky. Virtually everyone gets arthritis after a certain age. I have a really bad case of it although I keep active and therefore don't feel it at all. At 64, I already notice that I get tired a lot more easily than I did even five years ago. And when I get tired, I just fall asleep. Oh, and I can't drink much caffeine any more because of my high blood pressure.

So, you see, if you saw me, you would think I am the picture of health, and I actually am, especially for my age. But employers prefer to hire younger applicants even though I have proved myself as capable and successful in my work. To be honest, I really can't carry quite the work load that younger people can carry although I believe that my good judgment and my ability to get along with other people compensate for the fact that I can't work quite the hours I used to.

Another big problem is that employers do not want to invest in training older people because they figure the older person will not still be working in 10 years. That is the excuse my boss gave when he fired me. It is against the law in California to discriminate against older people by refusing to offer them equal training or educational opportunities, but it is cheaper for employers to simply throw a small sum of money your way and buy you off than to continue to give you the opportunity to work. Who wants to work for less than half the pay that a younger person with comparable skills would be paid? Do you? So, you see, this issue is more complex than most people realize. If we had equal employment opportunities and if aging were less of a problem in many jobs, most people would work longer.

[sandyd921]

112. Unfortunately the realities for us older workers

are not something our senators appear to have any knowledge of. Many continue to draw a substantial salary and the generous benefits we pay for well into their senior years. But apparently their attitude is that what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

[SharonAnn]

179. The real problem is that they don't want to deal with the tax problem.

Social Security is funding the US Government functions with its surplus because taxes aren't enough. The tax cuts have significantly reduced the amount of money available to run the government, so the Social Security surplus is used to do it.

There's no problem with Social Security. At least not compared to the problem of too little tax revenue and too much spending on other things.

[wyldwolf]

5. you refuse to accept a fact about social security. It was NEVER mean to be lived on.

It's INSURANCE, not a wage.

When you retire, do you want to live on $1000. a month or less? Do you think that's the Democratic thing to do? Screw that. If I can have a government created saving account as a companion to SS, I'll vote for the person who offers it.

[madfloridian]

8. I think it is unnecessary to spend the money. Stop talking down to me.

We do not need to have the government set up private savings accounts.

As hard as you are protesting, I think there is something to what I am asking.

It makes no sense to spend the money when we have such a huge deficit. When Clinton first proposed it we had a surplus to be used for that.

When a group is pushing something like this and it makes no sense...then I wonder.

[wyldwolf]

11. no, it's very necessary to spend the money. Why?

Because social security payments do not rise at the same rate of inflation goods and services do, the money you get when you retire will not go as far as it does with retirees today. You will NOT be able to live on your SS benefits.

Don't pretend to be worried about the deficit. You don't throw up those concerns in regards to universal healthcare. And you would be just as opposed to this if were were running a surplus. Of the many times you've revisited this topic, this is the FIRST time you used that reasoning.

You have two motivators for your in your opposition to private companion accounts. One, you don't want anything that might appear to undo antiquated new deal policies. Even Barack Obama calls for revisiting new deal and great society programs that simply "no longer work as advertised."

Two, you'd rather retired people be poor than accept anything from the Clintons or the DLC.

[madfloridian]

18. I thought I had heard all your BS

But I was wrong.

[wyldwolf]

54. which part was BS?

Your irrational fear of the DLC or your irrational fear of anything that will compensate for the shortcomings of New Deal and Great Society programs?

[davekriss]

117. Put the federal spend supporting companion accounts...

...into maintaining or increasing social security's defined benefits.

[wyldwolf]

122. I didn't say that

...whatever it is you just said...

[cuke]

32. I'd be homeless if it weren't for my mom's private retirement savings acct

aka 401k

[papau]

46. with the wage indexing, Social Security benefits for the currently working rise faster than the CPI

it is only after retirement that you get locked into the CPI (wages determine standard of living and idea is to use wage index so you can know what standard of living you will retire at).

If there is a replacement of the wage index by the CPI as suggested by the GOP and this group, it will be a cut of (fill in the blank - for new borns it is perhaps a 60% cut) of the Social Security benefit they will get relative to current promises.

[papau]

40. idea is screw the artificial deficit due to under-taxing the rich - and pass things like this with

a tax fix later and a cut in war/defense/intel spending ASAP.

[cuke]

49. And it's a realistic strategy

Much better than pie in the sky fantasies that will leave me homeless while waiting for it to pass

[rucognizant]

73. B---S--- Cukes!

It's a rip off. My Great Grandparents were the first recipients of SS and they lived a lovely serene life in their own home, no nursing home assisted living.........TO THE AGES OF (94 & 96 in 1946!) MY NEIGHBOR JUST DIED A FEW YEARS AGO SHE WAS 102 & lived in her own home until she was 101! Going blind and deaf, she retained her mental acuity even in the local ( warm & fuzzy nursing home here) SHe was comfortable on her SS income!

If you want to be assured of SS in your old age DON'T ENABLE THE PRESENT POLITICIANS..................GET OUT INTHE STREET AND MARCH FOR IMPEACHMENT, AND CHANGE OF PERSONNEL IN DC!

I see on MSNBC this morning the DEMOCRATIC congress has just voted a 4 day work week for themselves in Jan 2008!

I am 68, my income is $9,888. I will probably live another 20-25 years, given my genetic makeup, ( unless I freeze to death or get sick from lack of healthy diet. )
I am an artist I have at least 30 years of painting I want to do before I die. Unfortunately on a low income a lot of my time is taken over by things like:
yesterday: buying a 2 gal can, going to the service station for 2 gal of diesel fuel to add to my heater tank because LIHEAP hasn't kicked in yet and the temp was dropping. If the furnace stops it will cost $45.00 to get it bled to start again.
standing in the wind, rain, & dark pouring the fuel down the pipe. Than God, I didn't buy the 5 gal can, my knees wouldn't have lasted! A really swell ceative way to live. THESE ARE MY GOLDEN YEARS! MY REWARD FOR WORKING MY TAIL OFF AND LIVING A VIRTUOUS LIFE. I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE ROBBED AND CHEATED PEOPLE SO I WOU,LD BE MORE COMFORTABLE NOW.
( I used to make good money with my art, until the Reagan Bush recession of 1990, I spent the 90's doing dumb low pay jobs, trying to restart my career in an ever dumbing down, cheap plastic import favoring society! ( WELL just look at how they vote!)
SOmebody just paid $15,000. to be remembered in history as first passengers on that superjet flight from SIngapor to Sidney. That's what we paid for our first house back in 1968!
Somebody just cut out frills ( lattees, etc. ) and saved $40,000 in one year. THAT'S FIVE YEARS INCOME FOR ME!
Sadly I have a lot more to offer the world than these people ........IF ONLY I WERENT SO BUSY CARRYING GAS CANS!

[cuke]

94. I understand where you're coming from

and you have my sympathies. My story is different in many ways, but I fear that I may end up in a place much like yours.

I'm 48 yo, and I worked as a computer programmer for about 25 years. I made quite a decent living. Not rich, but for a single guy, I was doing well and saving towards my retirement. Then my mother got Alzheimer's.

Her medical insurance doesn't cover any sort of day care or companionship or anything really because the things she needed (someone to make sure she didn't hurt herself) were not considered "medically necessary" and her long-term care ins didn't cover it because it was designed to kick in after a long hospitalization. The cost would have to come out of our pockets, and since my mother wasn't going to pay (like many, my mother is not aware there is anything wrong with her) and since I didnt have the money to pay someone out of pocket, So I had to quit my job so that I could take care of her.

I have gone through my retirement savings which took me almost 30 years of working to accumulate. My mother's money (which I will soon have access to) should be just enough to provide for her care until she is eligible for Medicaid. 30 years of her savings, and 30 years of my savings are all going to disappear over the course of a few years. I can't go back to my career (not that I want to anymore) because by the time I'm ready to do so, I'll have been out of the feild for so long, no one will want to hire a 50yo pgmr who hasn't worked for years.

My mother deserves more than being driven into pennitude in her old age, and I shouldn't have to bankrupt myself to ensure that she is well cared for. And I haven't even begun to get into the toll this has taken on me physically and emotionally, and I have no insurance to pay for the care I could use.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

126. Nice right wing ideology you have there. nt

[cuke]

130. All hate, no content

all you have is hate

[Sarah Ibarruri]

133. I am hateful because I'm pointing out that poor people have no money to invest?

How do you figure that?

[madfloridian]

134. Some don't have to reason it out....they just get to say it.

and that makes it right. I've been seeing a lot of that lately.

[cuke]

135. Because these accts are not meant to help those too poor to save, Einstein

Every pgm doesn't have to be about the poor. This is a pgm for the middle class and for the economy

From her speech introducing the plan

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3640

"...This is a major commitment to how I think we can begin to right the balance again. Here's how American retirement accounts will work: To give a strong incentive for saving, my plan will offer working and middle-class families generous matching tax cuts...

...That means tens of millions of middle-class families will be eligible for matching tax cuts of up to $500 and $1,000 to help them build a nest egg....

...In short, my plan will help tens of millions of go from just getting by to getting ahead. "

Nowhere in the speech does she claim these accts will benefit people too poor to save anything

[Sarah Ibarruri]

186. Every program people like you come up with is only about the rich and well-to-do.

And there's no reason to insult me when the one lacking is you.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

81. I'm 100% with you. Social Security money has been used like a bank account

The money going into Social Security is not supposed to be a bank account for the rich. It's supposed to be for Social Security. It's not even a cowboy mentality. With a cowboy mentality, you have *everyone* pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That is, the rich are no longer allowed to be living off the dole on my tax money. However, in THIS country, they want my tax money to fund new homes for CEOs like Blackwater's, European secret accounts for the owners of Haliburton, free money for running their giant corporations, but they'll kill before they'll keep their hands off the segment of my taxes that's supposed to go to Social Security. Just can't keep their @#$# hands off that money, can they?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Here are 3 bits of info. to challenge you on that......

......
The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer......

Here is a little-known fact: each year the government collects tens of billions of dollars more in Social Security taxes than it needs to pay out in benefits. What happens to the surplus? This year as in every year since 1983 Congress will spend it on other programs. The total Social Security surplus will be $70 billion in 2006, all of which will be spent on other programs, masking the true size of the federal deficit.

Economic advisors to Congress warn the cost of U.S.-led war on terror could exceed $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Much of that funding comes from money borrowed overseas, and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says it would be best to start paying for the war now and not let the debt grow.

[wyldwolf]

13. ok

The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer......

But you can't live on it, or, why would you want to try? And why is any of this even relevant? Does any of it mean retired people don't want or need more money at retirement? Does private account independent of social security that draws on two percent of your payroll taxes or private accounts that one pays into in anyway effect social security?

No.

What you wrote isn't in dispute. It simply isn't relevant to private companion accounts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

71. You're saying that it's not enough to provide a nice lifestyle.....

Fine. That's not the point. The point is that many old people are unable to accumulate any money. CEOs are now pocketing every penny they can instead of paying appropriate salaries, pensions and to sufficient employees. This economy is extremely difficult compared to others. LOTS of old people get to the end of their life without having reached upper middle class and saving up a good amount for living off of. They *DO* have to live on social security. They don't want to, but HAVE TO.

[wyldwolf]

74. we're not discussing "old people" We're discussing future old people

It has nada to do with CEOs and corporations and other boogiemen. It has to do with today's working people investing in private accounts so that when they are "old people," they have more than today's "old people."

[Sarah Ibarruri]

79. You can't be serious

Doing away with pensions was integrally related to the creation of 401Ks. That money now lands in the pockets of CEOS who are making what was it? 500 times what they were making in 1960?

[wyldwolf]

83. sure I am. And wait! You approve of pensions???

Pensions are independent of SS.

Look. If you want to try to live off of the small amount SS is going to pay you, just decline any offer of private investment accounts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

85. 401K took the place of pensions. Right wing Dems and GOPers are dying to kill Social Security too..

by saying that 401K is good enough for the poor and middle class. It's bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

88. says who? Where have you seen or read that 401ks took the place of pension accounts?

Leftwing "progressives"* obviously want to keep people dependent.

[cuke]

95. Defined contribution plans (DCP) like 401K's have taken the place of

Defined Benefit Plans (DBP) like pensions. However, one must be either very confused or very reactionary to think that the issue of DCP vs DBP has much to with SS.

As papua points out in a post up above, unions use to talk about the "three-legged stool" that was meant to support us in our senior years - Soc Sec for 1/3rd, your employers defined benefit plan for 1/3rd and your savings for 1/3rd of your income for each year alive and retired. As you can see, the DBP's and DCP's that we are talking about are the 2nd leg (the employer supplied leg) and SS is the 1st leg.

People just hear the words SS and react by throwing a tizzy. This being DU, just throw in the words DLC, and watch the heads explode. No need to actually familiarize oneself with the details; no matter that it has NOTHING to do with the soundness of SS finances; just post irrelevant links to decades old laws that have absolutely nothing to do with these savings accts and rants about the DLC

After all, it's not that they actually care about seniors enough to learn the facts.

[...of J.Temperance]

156. It makes sense

People under 40 years-old today should be investing in private accounts, because chances are at this rate, when they get to be old people, there's not going to be enough money around to be able to afford them a decent retirement income.

I see nothing wrong with having a Bi-Partisan Commission regarding Social Security....Social Security I don't think is going to be privatized, I would however say that raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 is a pretty good idea.

[cuke]

25. It's like a govt and business subsidized 401k plan

All of a sudden we're opposed to 401k plans?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

72. 401K plans are bullshit. I'm old enough to remember when they pulled 401s out of their @$$....

I'm not that old, but I recall the 401 bullshit. The purpose of 401Ks was so that companies would no longer have to provide pensions as part of a worker's compensation. And so it happened. Now companies do not. CEOs and boards pay the minimum wage and pocket the rest. And the beauty for them of this is that this country has no protection of small business. It permits the big fish to swallow the little fish, so one can barely make one's tiny business work versus these monsters. The end result? Almost everyone is forced to work for these corporations.

Social security must stay.

[wyldwolf]

76. 401Ks are excellent. And, why are people here intentionally confusing the difference...

..between private accounts and social security. The proposals are to have both. But you know that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

78. 401K plans are excellent for the rich and those of us who make decent wages

The rest are screwed, and Republicans and right wing Democrats are just itching to do away with social security under the guise that 401K solves the problems of the poor. So it is bullshit. Further, those who make enough money, can sock enough away to make a 401K worthwhile. Those who are using their paycheck to pay for milk, gas, healthcare, have barely anything to put away so their 401K will amount to almost nothing when they retire. The wealthy and those with a good salary can put enough away and so they're happy as pigs in mud about 401K. Lastly, 401K is Las Vegas. You take a pension which is a guaranteed amount of money, do away with it, give it to the CEOs, and then tell your employees that they must now take THEIR OWN MONEY and play high stakes at Vegas.

As I said, it's bullshit. Retirement funds must be guaranteed for a large proportion of the population. We need to stop being such a savage nation and learn from Europe.

[wyldwolf]

82. so your contention is because some can't afford 401Ks, no one should have them?

Sorry, the scare tactics those like you use are just that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

84. You obviously read nothing I typed.....

I said that they TOOK THE PLACE of pensions. Former pension money now lands in the pockets of CEOs, higher management, and board members. The middle class is now forced to use their own money to place the high-stakes Vegas stock market. It's bullshit.

What's more, the rich always had access to the stock market. They should've continued to play in it.

[wyldwolf]

89. I read it all. Private investment accounts DID NOT take the place of pensions

There is no law stating as such.

Like most leftwing "progressives"* you want to keep people dependent on the government.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

92. I want my tax money used for what it should be used for. Social Security is not a bank account for

the rich and shouldn't be used as such.

[cuke]

96. 401k plans have NOTHING TO DO WITH SS

I do know what sort of fever produced this hallucination of yours but the fact that 401k's replaced pension plans has NOTHING TO DO WITH SS!!!

401k's did not become the new pension plan because of any change in SS. In fact, SS pays out more now then it did before 401K plans become so widespread. Employers replaced pensions with 401k plans for one simple reason - BECAUSE THEY COULD!!!

And the reason they could do that was because of the decline of unions. Didn't you notice that the rise of the 401k plan and the disappearance of pension plans followed shortly after Reagan's assault on unions during the 80's? Didn't you notice that you can't point to one change in SS that explains the rise of 401k plans?

Yet, you'll continue to claim that this has something to do with eliminating SS and nothing to do with the decline of organized labor

[Sarah Ibarruri]

125. They're not the same thing, but 401Ks are being used as an excuse to do away with SS....

....just as they were used to take away pensions, so high mgmt in corporations could pocket the money.

[cuke]

167. No, 401K's are being used to replace pensions, not SS

Since 401k's came into existence, SS benefits have INCREASED

[Sarah Ibarruri]

183. The argument is being shaped the same for eliminating SS...

... "Oh, it's not sufficient".... "oh it was never meant to be something to live on".... oh, there's not enough money in the SS fund left".. "oh there's 401K and people should 'take advantage' of that"... oh this oh that oh the other.

It's always the same right wing bullshit.

[TheOtherMaven]

101. Reality Check

"Private investment accounts DID NOT take the place of pensions. There is no law stating as such."

There was and is no law FORBIDDING employers to substitute 401K plans for pensions - so guess what they did. They did it on their own, because it LET THEM KEEP MORE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES' MONEY.

Pensions are ancient history, with a few very rare exceptions. 401Ks are the way most businesses have gone. The rich keep on getting richer and screwing the poor harder and harder.

[cuke]

102. They did not do it "on their own"

Business had Reagan and the repukes help them by destroying unions. If more people were unioned, we'd be able to demand defined benefit pension plans

[davekriss]

123. Um, in my "progressive" world...

...the government is for and by We the People, it isn't the bogeyman. If we decide democratically to put in place "government" programs that broadly benefit our fellow citizens, then who are you to belittle it ("keep dependent")? I hear echos of those "why should I have to pay?" crowd, you know, those who swallowed too many red Reagan pills.

401K programs did indeed replace defined benefit programs. Many such programs were converted to defined contribution. The vested were paid a present value lump sum into their new defined contribution plan, which sometimes was increased a bit to quell objection. From that point on the worker could reduce his pay to finance his or her own retirement, albeit often with a matching sum which was quite less than the corporate costs to maintain the defined benefit plan. The corporate world does nothing that does not serve shareholder value, and the great conversion from defined benefit to defined contribution served to lesson obligations on shareholders.

[davekriss]

121. If you were addressing me, I would say...

...since MANY can't afford 401k's, we should be doing everything we can to shore up and strengthen the secure income floor, not add additional programs that disproportionately benefit the better off. First things first.

[cuke]

175. I have to strongly disagree

I do not think that every pgm dems propose must end the war on poverty before we can start helping those who are not as bad off.

[wyldwolf]

75. only because it isn't someone acceptable by the left who is proposing it

[Sarah Ibarruri]

80. Uh.... last I checked they took the place of company pensions. nt

[wyldwolf]

87. only if a company wants them to

But if you're such a fan of company pensions, I can't see why you're not a fan of some of the SS companion account ideas being floated. One which takes 2% of your payroll tax off the top and invests it. You'll never miss it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

91. Take investment bingo out of any discussion of retirement plans. nt

[cuke]

97. You can invest in bond or cash equivalents like CD's

Don't you know ANYTHING about investing?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

124. As I said, take the investment bingo out of social security. nt

[cuke]

127. You can invest in bond or cash equivalents like CD's

Don't you know ANYTHING about investing?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

128. Poor people don't have the money to invest in anything. What are you trying to prove?

If there's something you're trying to prove, say so.

[cuke]

129. You can invest in bond or cash equivalents like CD's

There's no risk inherent in these accts. Your rants about the stock market risks are blather

All you can do is repeat your tired old talking points. You can't even back them up with anything besides irrelevancies. You haven't made one true statement in this thread

[Sarah Ibarruri]

132. Poor people have no money to invest.

Please take the time to read what is being said, rather than provide knee-jerk right wing responses to my comments. Thanks.

[cuke]

136. And?

These accts are not a poverty program. They aren't meant to benefit people to poor to save any money. It's meant to benefit working class and middle class families. Every program doesn't have to benefit the poor.

You're grasping for a reason to criticize, and you don't care if what you say is true or relevant

[madfloridian]

137. Can you show me where they are not meant for the poor?

I can go way back to the 90s there at the DLC and PPI websites, and there is stuff talking about people who are poor. I think you should on individual savings accounts, which I believe is the previous term used...at www.dlc.org . Or do a tab at the top for their sister site PPI.

Here is what is said in the Dream Initiative:

"American Dream Accounts. Americans deserve to know that a lifetime of work will ensure a secure retirement. We need a new approach that requires every employer to open a retirement account for every worker; enrolls workers automatically unless they opt out; increases their contribution automatically over time unless they direct otherwise; gives employees the advice and guidance to allow them to invest wisely; and enables workers to take their pensions with them when they change jobs."

Gee, that sounds so much like Social Security. Some parts are different, but not that much.

What part tells you it is not for the poor? The ISAs were originally said to be for the poor.

[cuke]

138. It's in another post in this thread

I'm not talking about the 90's and what people then we're talking about. I'm talking about what a presidential candidate is proposing NOW.

"Gee, that sounds so much like Social Security. Some parts are different, but not that much."

I guess it would to someone who doesn't realize that SS is mandatory and takes 12% of your wages, while ADA's are completely voluntary and you put in as much or as little as you like, subject to the limits the legislation puts in place

"What part tells you it is not for the poor? "

The parts I linked to and quoted in another post in this thread

[madfloridian]

140. So why not just have Social Security and let people save on their own?

It appears to me this will put pressure on small businesses.

Anyone know? Seems like twice the work.

[cuke]

143. Economics.

To put it simply, we cannot afford a tax revenue based Defined Benefit Plan that covers our entire retirement. Demographics make it impossible in all but the most fortunate of circumstances (many workers, few retirees). Instead the idea was, as described in another post by papua a three-legged stool meant to support us in our retirement

"But even in the good old union power days we'd discuss the 3 legged stool with Soc Sec for 1/3rd, your employers defined benefit plan for 1/3rd and your savings for 1/3rd of your income for each year alive and retired. New in our world it is the savings part becoming 401k/IRA for those that save, and the defined benefit plan either being totally dropped, or being dropped with am employer contribution to the 401k being added."

These new accounts are meant to be a part of the third leg; the personal retirement savings leg. It doesn't effect SS at all. It's meant to strengthen the private savings portion of the stool. Our national savings rate is very low and this pgm is meant to increase it. (this is the heart of Clintonomics, more later)

wrt your concerns in the OP

The desire of some to have SS revenues used for this accompanied by a corresponding cut in SS benefits (sold under the idea that your SS money is better off invested in the stock market where it will get better returns) is, as you note in your OP, a republican/corporatist/DLC plot to undermine SS. However, HRC's plan is NOT part of this scheme to undermine SS. I can tell because her plan is missing the two essential elements that the DLCers have said they want:

1) Use SS funds to finance/subsidize private accts (to undermine it's financial security)
2) Lower the SS benefits (to eliminate the govt's liability and place it on the individual)

Another reason why I think HRC's plan has nothing to do with undermining SS is because this debate is the same exact one that occurred in the 90's during the Clinton Administration, and Clinton's plan was not the one the republicans and the DLC wanted. Instead, Bill Clinton went for "Social Security Plus", a savings plan that did not use SS funds and did not lower SS benefits. This is also true of Hillary Clinton's current plan.

Back to Clintonomics

Many economists credit the boom of the 90's in large part to "easy credit". Basically, it means that there was a large pool of capital available to be invested. Supply and demand dictate that when supply (available capital) outstrips demand (people looking for business development loans) by a significant margin, prices (interest rates) drop. This large pool of capital is created by the money that people save. People saved during the Clinton admin because they started pouring their money into 401k plans, a policy that the Clinton admin pushed almost back to day one. This is Clintonomics. Reich, Summers, and Rubin were the architects. Basically, this plan should achieve similar results, though probably not quite as extreme as it was in the 90's.

[cuke]

145. Here is that other post, MF

From her speech introducing the plan

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3640

"...This is a major commitment to how I think we can begin to right the balance again. Here's how American retirement accounts will work: To give a strong incentive for saving, my plan will offer working and middle-class families generous matching tax cuts...

...That means tens of millions of middle-class families will be eligible for matching tax cuts of up to $500 and $1,000 to help them build a nest egg....

...In short, my plan will help tens of millions of middle-class families go from just getting by to getting ahead. "

Nowhere in the speech does she claim these accts will benefit people too poor to save anything

[madfloridian]

149. They already have Social Security. Why reinvent the wheel?

Unless it is to give an incentive to private companies, I see no benefit.

[cuke]

150. Expense, and it's not inventing the wheel

We can't afford to expand SS to cover our entire retirement. That's why none of the candidates are proposing that. And when I say none, I'm not just talking about the dems and the repukes. I'm including Nader and everyone else.

As far as reinventing the wheel, it's nothing of the kind. It's a savings acct. It's just like a 401K plan and banks and brokerage houses, etc are already set up to handle them. The only difference is where the money in the acct is coming from, and that's not the banks problem. They take whatever money comes in and it's no problem for them.

The burden, little that there is, is on the employer's side. The employer will be responsible for enrolling the employee, and seeing that the proper deductions are made, and that the employer makes their share of the money gets deposited on a timely basis. Like most payroll matter, everything but the enrolling of the employee with be farmed out to a payroll processing company. Even small businesses do this. It's not a burden. It's one extra form to fill out when you hire a new employee.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

185. But they're being used as an excuse to eliminate anything for the poor....

.... the poor are urged to invest in these towards their future. With what?

[blondie58]

148. cuke, I find it really curious that you've only been a member since Oct 2007,

yet you have 1898 posts. You are quite loquacious.

[cuke]

163. I'm unemployed

I stay home and watch my sick mother.

And thanks for asking me a personal question on a public forum in order to satisfy your curiosity