No, Rahm, leave Social Security alone.

I knew it, I knew it. I knew the Democrats would fight for us on Social Security to get elected, then I figured they would start trying to change it.

They can work with charging the very wealthy more than they do, no objection to that. But, no, that will not satisfy the K Street gang. They have to do something for the private sector.

This Universal Saviings Account things sounds good on the surface, when you say it is "in addition to" the traditional. But the next step will be turning more over to the private sector.

That is not acceptable. I knew they would do this. They have nearly turned Medicare over to private companies, they may yet get away with it.

“Universal Savings Accounts” to Supplement Social Security

by Rep. Rahm Emanuel



Any money that goes to the private sector for savings accounts will be money taken out of the traditional Social Security.

I knew they would do this. Now that the Democrats are in control of congress, they are going along with the conservative agenda in nearly every area.

This is a foot in the door for privatizing.

And Will Marshall's article at the DLC from 1999 backs up my thought on this issue. Play to the base until you get elected and then move right. He is talking here about approving Bush's personal account plan.

Grand Bargain on Social Security



Rand...personal accounts. No, no no.

The party is doing this to its base...going to the right on FISA, the war, on Iran, on everything. They know no matter what they do, we will be there.

Did you really think the Dems are a real alternative? they have always supported Wallstreet. It cracks me up when I read posts on here where people are shocked that the Dems side with the monied interests. That's all they have ever done! Who do you think helped pass NAFTA and Taft-Hartley!? One party with two faces....

He pushed out progressives who ran in Democratic primaries in 2006 to replace them with DLCers. This guy needs to be removed from any leadership positions.

They have not "always" sided with corporate interests. That began in 1992 with the DLC -- formed as a response to having their collective asses handed to them in the fund raising department by the Republicans. The first foray into that change came in the form of NAFTA and its been downhill ever since. I'm not sure how old you are but the Democrats did, at one time, represent the citizenry for a good 40 years. Basically policies born out of Roosevelt's Great Society. That (and us) got flushed down the toidy in the name of winning. Sadly, the only thing that was won was power for a few. The rest of us got hosed -- and Hillary Clinton.

'New Deal' - FDR

We don't see anything like that happening even now --
And, honest reps were targeted by the MIIC and NRA and other right-wing groups --

We need third parties and IRV --

We need public financing of campaigns --
and totally removing corporations from any participation in elections --

any participation . .. at all!!!

you're going to be hating life when you retire to find there's no socialist security left to draw.

The best thing any one pres. could do would be to abolish it and let the working class use the cash getting deducted from their pay checks to roll into their own retirement plan. Unfortunately nobody wants to accept the personal responsibility of such a task and that will be their undoing when they have to retire at the Salvation Army because SS is gone.

out the other side of yer butt. Some people make very little money, with none left over for savings. Obviously you don't care that these poor people who have contributed to your current level of civilization are impoverished when their bodies will no longer scrub toilets or make your coffees, or greet your ass when it comes thru the door at Wal-Mart. Can't say as banks or investments are any good either, my mom died broke after saving all her life because the state funds were tied into enron. Have a nice stay here at DU.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we say NO.

if oru gov. bought major amounts of stocks in our private companies wouldn't this in effect create socialism through the back door? The gov. would control major portions of some of the largest companies in the US. Just playing devils advocate for the pro-privatizers...

I want my social security taken care of by a mess of hoped up twenty somethings buying and selling stock on an hourly basis in order to make the margins...

No thanks, Social Security is fine by me...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This might work quite well as a fund to supplement Soc. Sec. against inflation over time.

We call them ISAs (Individual Savings Account). Tax-free (although there's an upper limit to prevent rich people using them to avoid paying taxes) savings accounts, intended to encourage saving for one's old age.

EDIT: It is also possible to have the contents of your ISA invested in the stock market, rather than straightforward savings but that's little used.

You get a tax break for investing your money in private sector accounts for retirement.

Clinton laid out a proposal to provide a universal 401(k) plan for everyone, at a speech Tuesday in Webster City, Iowa.

She said the savings rate today is lower than it was in 1929, more than 75 million workers do not have employer-sponsored pensions to save for retirement and many people who do have retirement plans are not saving enough.

Under her "American Retirement Accounts" plan, everyone would have access to a portable 401(k) and the government would offer matching tax cuts of up to $500 to $1,000 to help middle class and working families save. The campaign estimates it would cost $20 billion to $25 billion a year to provide the matching tax cuts and said she would pay for it by freezing the estate tax at 2009 levels.

"These accounts will take the best of the 401(k) plans and make them available to every working family," Clinton told an audience of mostly elderly people gathered at a recreation center.

Her staff called the proposal the second-biggest policy rollout of the campaign in terms of cost and the number of people it would cover, second only to her plan for universal health care... http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/09/40379...

This plan was killed by GOP IN 1998 when Bill proposed it - its an excellent idea that solves 2 problems

how low personal savings rate gets a boost as another 25 Billion a year comes back to something other than war -

and retirement income security is improved as folks have a bit of cash at retirement and in the process get in the habit of saving for the future.

It has nothing to do with supply side anything (which makes CNBC's Kudlow's flip flop from his 1998 opposition interesting since he is usually only for accounts if setting them up hurts Social Security).

This does not affect Social Security and indeed gets the idea of investing in real assets with payroll tax funds under the door - so we can perhaps in the future stop having the Trust Fund buy Government Bonds that the GOP can pretend are worthless (although we know they are not worthless but they do require higher taxes on the rich in the future to pay back the bonds as they are cashed in to pay benefits - which is fair since those bonds are financing the current tax cuts for the rich).

Kudlow is trying to fake the Dems out by pretending to be for the idea this time - interesting .... he hated it last time (1998) and was demanding that any accounts be paid for by destroying Social Security.

There are many other savings instruments available and if the truly poor save a dime it will just be sucked away by medical bills before Medicare kicks in, though not before Wall Street has deducted its healthy annual "processing" fees.

folks have no pension, no 401k, no IRA, no employment defined contribution savings and no employment defined benefit plan benefit.

This is a start on a solution to this problem.

If these 50% aren't saving now, how will a tax credit on future savings help them? If it's optional, they'll opt out if they need every dollar to live. Let's generously say one half start modest savings accounts. Then 25% still have no savings, and the other 25% have a small nestegg to run through before Medicare or some other health coverage kicks in. Why not just increase the SS benefit for everybody?

developed- albeit of very modest size (about 1/3rd of the average 401k) - but everyone gets it (it is not optional).

The savings developed helps investment growth which helps economic and job growth (assuming Hillary also gets the deficit under control).

than privatizing part or all of SS, and basically that's what this is about.

... to inflate the market prices of stock. Ubetcha. Just keep chasing the same ol' stock with ever-increasing dollars ... and the ISO holders will salivate. Mandating foolishness makes the Greater Fool marhet giddy.

You say he is, so I'd like to know why.

(Note: Me <- not a big Emanuel fan)

We don't need any private accounts, you fucking corporate whore.*

*There: an instance where a man is called a whore, for all those who can't stomach the word.

into the "centrist" wing and the progressive wing.

How is forcing me to hand money over to stockbrokers a free market.

They just keep taking our money to invest overseas. They want to bleed us dry. That's how they're going to equalize the global workforce, make us as poverty stricken as the rest of the workers. Living in shipping containers, working 12 hours a day, that's what we've got to look forward to.

What an infuriating, insulting, REPUBLICAN-STYLE excuse for a "solution".

King Ronnie said, I believe it, and that settles it.

You make the statement, "Any money that goes to the private sector for savings accounts will be money taken out of the traditional Social Security."

However, Emanuel's description,



appears to advocate the exact opposite. (That is, he appears to be calling for a plan that will decrease neither the contributions to, or benefits of, the Social Security system.)




Is there something here that I am missing?

What is the basis for your statement that Emanuel's "Universal Savings Accounts" would reduce funding for Social Security, (rather than supplement it as do 401K's and other present retirement plans)?

It is optional and in addition to SS.

As an employer it sounds easy to manage from the payroll deduction/paper work/deposit standpoint.

I assume the 1% limit is because the savings will be untaxed income for the employee.

Sounds like a good idea to me unless I have missed something.

It sounds like the same thing but just called something different.

This would open up to the general public, what some have available through their employment. Social Security is just what it's name says. It is a floor and an insurance policy. SSI+ would provide a pension in addition to the basic plan. If presented properly, it would eliminate some of the criticism of the present system and clarify what Social Security actually is.

I will find some other things on it, different names they call it. It is like opening the door a bit, calling it something else.

This plan has been around for years.

to keep funding current benefits for retirees is very high, around $2 TRILLION.

I guess Rahm thinks we should just raise the debt ceiling and print more money.

These schemes have long been discredited. The cost of establishing them is prohibitive and would weaken the entire system.

in the regular SS system. That's why shit like this must not be ALLOWED!

This is another camel's nose under the tent...

Don't trust these capitalist fucks!!!

in order for this to "address a prime source of economic inequality in old age: relatively low savings among poor minority families", it must be a MANDATORY SIPHONING from EITHER the paycheck or the S.S. funds.

And this will help the jobless poor, the working poor who need every penny as SPENDABLE income, the orphaned, and the disabled HOW?????

we won't have a trust fund any more (the notes will be magically disappeared) and we'll be all set to spend another 200 bil bombing Iran and Syria.

Thanks MF for alerting us about this wretched scam.

Perhaps you should revisit the article. It seems to be saying something rather different than you are asserting.

Building on the principles of personal accounts, universal savings and the desire for simplicity, we should create “Universal Savings Accounts” to supplement Social Security

Not to mention that "supplement" is right there in your link title.

they WOULD; there are plenty of financial entities ready to "help" them.

So what's the Federal gov't's dog in this hunt?
Offering another option, in competition with private institutions? Bwahahahaha!
Just helping out the little guy, out of the kindness of its big Federal heart? Puh-leeze!
Lifting the tent for the camel's privatization nose? Indeed.

A TRUE S.S. reform plan would have 2 goals: Make it pro-, not regressive (i.e., top down, not bottom up); and raise the percentage rate(s) for taxing the upper incomes.

"we should create “Universal Savings Accounts” to supplement Social Security. Employers and employees would contribute 1 percent of paychecks on a tax-deductible basis. Additional contributions could be made to the accounts at individual worker’s or company’s discretion."

The definition of "supplemental" seems rather clear. It would seem that you're being mislead by the OP's incorrect interpretation of this proposal.

"Just helping out the little guy, out of the kindness of its big Federal heart? Puh-leeze!"

See above quote from the article. The money comes from employers and employees, not the government. No heart kindness required.

"A TRUE S.S. reform plan would have 2 goals: Make it pro-, not regressive (i.e., top down, not bottom up); and raise the percentage rate(s) for taxing the upper incomes."

Your goals and this proposal are not mutually exclusive. You're talking about the current "traditional" Social Security program. The proposal about supplementing SS is not.

for those who are younger and think the SS program is infringing on their rights. It is going to be a generational battle, in fact already it.

Foot in the door.

represented NECESSARY SPENDING MONEY?

I repeat: What's it to Rahm?? IOW, if people wanted to and COULD save ("1 percent"), THEY ALREADY WOULD BE so saving.

Why does Rahm think MANDATED (the verb "would") payroll savings is a GOOD IDEA?

means that they can cut standard benefits and FORCE folks to "supplement" their SS coverage in order to survive.

They have done the same with Medicare in the last few years.

They have systematically underfunded Medicare and allowed the private, for-profit health care mafia to get their scoops into the taxpayer's treasure chest with their taxpayer-subsidized, private, for-profit Medicare plans. This has forced the people who can afford it to buy Supplemental coverage in order to actually (maybe) BE COVERED. Those who cannot afford to supplement their Medicare coverage remain 2nd class elderly citizens when it comes to health care.

(This has also made AARP rich -- AARP brokers lots of private, for-profit 'supplemental health care coverage' to fill in the holes PURPOSELY left in Medicare coverage by the rahm emanuels and their fellow travelers. So much for that "advocate" for seniors -- conflict of interest anyone?)

Instead of adequately funding Social Security now by raising the ceiling or any other fair, progressive method, they are planning, as usual, to shift the burden to the mythical "financially responsible individual" in a completely volatile job "market", while further funneling our money into the bank accounts of their corporate capitalist masters.

Don't you believe these corporate tools!

so that those of us truly interested in reaching an objective opinion on this can do so without your (usual) mischaracterizations.

http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/socialsec...

It is quite long, but thorough.

Here are some parts that jumped out at me and makes me cautious about the names they call the changes to the program.



But will it be "over and above". Not with the way things are going right now. A "nod" is all the corporate sector needs. And there is no surplus now...when Clinton proposed this there was.

They know what they are doing. Muddying the waters with different names.



Read the whole article but remember this paragraph especially.

More articles with more names for privatization on the way.

"In the end, if anything does happen, it will be a compromise between what the privatizers want and Bill Clinton's carefully crafted plan. Such a compromise could prove difficult or impossible to achieve. Virtually all of the Republican Party is lined up behind partial privatization--indeed, a central part of the GOP's response to the State of the Union was the need for private accounts carved out of Social Security. And a number of moderate Democrats are on board. Yet that's not enough: Social Security cannot be reorganized without strong bipartisan support. Moreover, if partial privatization is to happen, Clinton will have to make an irreparable break with the AFL-CIO, since labor will never surrender on any carve-out of Social Security money. Right now, says an insider, many of Clinton's key economic advisers are leaning toward support for partial privatization, but the White House's political gurus, including those advising Vice President Gore, are skeptical. "And," he says, "as of today the political people are in control."

Yeh, well, labor has been weakened so much since then that they may not have that much voice in the matter. When I saw Marshall Wittmann as the main blogger for SEIU's Since Sliced Bread...I felt odd.

It says..many of "Clinton's key economic advisers are leaning toward support for partial privatization."

Guess who they are? Rubin is one. He has had great access to the freshmen Democrats while labor has had little access.

and cling to the excuses of cowardice/blackmail as if they were lifelines.

He is really ugly in this post. And I would appreciate people not treating me like I don't know what I am talking about. Of course the centrist Democrats want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. A few don't, but the ones involved in the Third Way trio most certainly do....they just call it different stuff.



http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251076&kaid=12...

Here is the Campaign for America's Future website, you know the ones having the Inquisition?

www.ourfuture.org

If they start diverting the young people to private accounts, it immediately means less money.

Many are already finding their parents have been screwed by the new Medicare drug plans....which is privatization.

If you don't put money in...it is the same as taking money out.

You will have to pay for your parents when you never even thought about it.

He's finally exposed himself for the GOP enabler that he is. No turning back, Rahm. You and anyone you support will wear this albatross around their neck.

Privatizing Social Security is one of the worst, most corrupt policy proposals in modern times. Its highly unpopular among the public for the simple reason that it would be a tremendous ripoff of a system that is working fine and will be secure for the future if everyone keeps their greedy paws out of it.

Kiss your career goodbye, Rahm, you just jumped the shark.

He paid into SS all his adult life. That money is gone. That isn't right.

should be able to benefit.

His money, earned at many low wage, back breaking jobs, was taken from him and he never received any benefit from it. That isn't right.

.

That was REALLY uncalled for!

It has nothing to with "right wing talking points" and that is a low blow!

My brother earned the money. How is thinking and saying he should have had ownership of it a 'right wing talking point"?

I do not appreciate the rude remark.

The GOP is turning this into a generational battle. I know what they are doing because hubby and I are the only Democrats in our family. They are turning the young people against the older people.

They can fix a few things, but overall it is a damn good program and built up lives.

One class at a nearby college teaches that young people are being hurt by the program. They don't tell them to save in addition to the program all by themselves.

It needs to be changed. Saying that is NOT a "right wing talking point", anymore than saying we need a strong defense is.

There has to be a better way and making this a Left-Right issue is sabotaging legitimate attempts at making it better for all.

Bush is doing everything he can to hurt the administration of the program. They have closed offices, taken funds from the system, made it almost impossible to get through by phone at times.

But Social Security itself is a wonderful program that only needs some tweaks.

Yeah just like the should have "tweaked" the Titanic.

This has nothing to do with Bush, I or II. The system was not set up to be used as it is being used today and in the future.

In a few years there will be too many recipients and too few workers to support itself. Sorry, it is true. Tweaking it will not do the trick my friend.

Everyone pays in just in case they need it.

Not everyone gets cancer before Medicare kicks in, and not everyone gets into a major accident. However, the idea is that if you do, you're covered. If you don't get really sick or get in a major crash, your money is as gone as your brother's social security. That's how it works with insurance.

I'm sorry that your brother died early, and wasn't able to enjoy the retirement that he had coming.

But please, in your grief, try to not destroy the biggest insurance system in the country.

What is needed is to keep it going indefinitely, but making changes now, not destroying it.

as well.

Those are very important, too.

Insurance is voluntary. You are forced to give your money to SS. THAT is the BIG difference.

You are forced to give your money to various levels of Government for a wide variety of purposes. As an example, I pay taxes for the local school system, I have not children. I pay taxes for a fire department, even though I have never had to have them put out a fire. This is money lost to me personally. I do not see a difference in Social Security taxes. Leave the system the way it is and raise to Fica cap.

vote for a slightly higher retirement age to start with. And investment in something with a very stable, safe and greater return.

I'd like to ask you to see how many hours you can subject your body to carrying sheets of 1/2 inch plywood, drive a few hundred nails a day, or use a mouse for 8-10 hours per day when you get to be over 60.

If anyone will hire you...

As for stable, safe return -- there's not going to be anything more safe or stable than the government of "We the People".

As for greater return, the corporate capitalist "system" is reaching the end of its run. All of the signs are there for anyone to read.

It's based on a premise of sand -- the corporate capitalist system REQUIRES an infinite amount of resources to exploit for an infinite amount of time... It's running out of both...

I don't trust the fucking stock market with my retirement security...

Politically, I abhor over 90% of what the listed companies are doing and how they do it...

AND...I notice the poster is no longer with us.

to manage on my own. give me the option of staying in the system or making my own way. it's my money. give it back if you can't manage it well. don't ask for more under a different system.

once again, another republican myth busted.

I'm not benefitting from the Coast Guard, myself. So?

You're mouthing the fascist chimp words as your own and saying it's uncalled for that someone has the clarity to call you out on it?! Who do you think you're kidding?!

I paid thousands of dollars to my insurance company for car insurance and house insurance. I didn't need a penny of it. WAAAA. That money is GONE. That's not FAIR. WAAAA. WAAAA.

it is all some older people have.

to solve what was a HUGE social problem -- care for the aged. At the time SS was instituted during the Great Depression, the elderly was the poorest demographic group and old age was a hellish time for most.

The deal is that folks who are young enough and able enough to work will all pay into the pool to help care for the less fortunate.

Those who are too old or are unable to work or who (like me) have been forced out of the job market by job related disability and age discrimination and have reached an age of "retirement" will be able to survive (barely)...

Life is not fair. Life is not right. The good die young and the evil ones seem to live forever. That's just the way it is.

Your brother helped a lot of other people with the money he put into the community pool. The money is not "gone", it was put to good use. He racked up points in heaven with his contributions to the community.


It's too bad that we can't seem to get that same community spirit going in the realm of education. All school from pre-K through graduate school should be "free". The system of grants and scholarships that existed when I was younger have been supplanted by a system of onerous student "loans" demanding involuntary servitude from the graduate for repayment.

I wouldn't mind some of my tax dollars going to educate the young, even if I don't directly "benefit"...

I paid all this money into my car insurance and never got anything back.
I paid all this money into my health insurance and never got anything back.
life insurance.
homeowners/renters insruance.
etc. etc.

on your car insurance or your home insurance ... They cancel your ass... (happened to me with each, twice)

Lots of times when you try to get health care on your "health insurance", they deny the care...

But...

When I put in a claim for Social Security when I hit 62, GUESS WHAT!?!

They started dropping the money into my account immediately -- and still do -- every month...

I'll take government insurance over the leeches in the for-profit corporations any day of the week...


That's why I'm for Universal Single-Payer health care too...

People that don't get this are too stupid to breathe.

How much of an imbecile does a person have to be to miss this absolutely fundamental point?

We pay Social Security INSURANCE for the "risk" of growing old or being left disabled and unable to support ourself. Just like ALL insurance, the premiums paid by those insured go to pay the benefits to those who've incurred that condition.

It's fucking BULLSHIT to pretend that it's some kind of savings account. It's not. It never was. It was never intended to be. Ever.

You are very well-versed on this issue.

If rahm had a Democratic brain cell in his head then he would know the fascists don't have any good ideas..just irreparable ones.

Sorry, I can't seem to write a sentence without cussing at these dlcers and repukes..I say to myself I'm going to try and hold back but I get so disgusted with their corporate charades and disingenuouness against We The People that it's hopeless at this point in time. Probably cause I don't use those words in real life that they keep me sane when I'm seeing the next scam by the dlc and bushits.

Social Security was the reason I got into politics in 2000..because it's going to be my retirement money and I thought.."well, if you expect it to be there you should start being an activist and help make sure." It's gone way beyond SS, but it's weird that I even thought that cause I didn't know what the bushits were capable of or that they would accomplish a coup on our goverment.

References Bush's earlier proposal, but Rahm & the DLC plan is no different...

http://usliberals.about.com/od/socialsecurity/a/SocSecR...

Fact - Social Security is entirely solvent and will pay full benefits at least through 2042. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security can pay all benefits through 2052 with no changes whatsoever.

Fact - The Social Security trust fund has accumulated a surplus of more than $1.5 trillion. That occurred because the fund collected more in payroll taxes from our paychecks than it paid out in benefit checks.

Fact - 48 million Americans now receive monthly Social Security checks. Of those, 38% are the disabled, and widows and their children. The remainder are retirees. More than 5 million children receive part of their family income from Social Security.

Fact - The current US Social Security program is a model of financial efficiency both for the government and for banks and businesses, in that 99% of all payroll taxes paid into the trust fund are paid out as benefits. Administrative overhead to run the program is only 1% of all monies paid in by us.

Fact - In 2018 at earliest, monthly benefit checks sent out will be higher than the monthly payroll taxes collected by the Social Security trust fund. However, the surplus will keep growing until 2028 because of the interest that the Social Security trust fund earns in US Treasury Bonds.

Fact - If nothing at all is done to “reform” social security, it will still be able to pay 70% of full benefits after 2042, at worst case.

Fact - In 75 years at the earliest, if nothing at all is done to reform Social Security, it could run a deficit of up to $3.7 trillion. Not $10 trillion.

Fact - Payroll taxes (called FICA) are now withheld from US workers' paychecks on the first $97,000 of their annual incomes. That means that if a person earns $400,000 a year, he pays exactly the same FICA as the person who earns $97,000 a year. (This is called a payroll tax cap, because it's capped at $97,000.)

Fact - If the payroll tax cap was raised to $200,000 per year, there would be NO Social Security funding gap for more than 100 years.

Fact - When President Bush states that he will not raise taxes to "reform" Social Security, that means he will not ask the wealthy to pay more because he refuses to raise the payroll tax cap.

Fact - President Bush proposes that Americans be allowed to invest part of their payroll taxes into private saving accounts that would be invested in stocks. These accounts are like 401(K) accounts. This is called "privatization."

Fact - By diverting payroll taxes away from being paid to the Social Security trust fund, Social Security would no longer be able to pay full benefits. Benefit cuts would range from about 15% to 46%. Most economists project that diverting payroll taxes way from the trust fund will result in the phasing out altogether of Social Security.

Fact - President Bush said in 2005 the initial cost to American taxpayers for privatizing Social Security will be $2 trillion!!!

Fact - Privatized accounts will be reduced as much as 20% to 30% by fees charged by investment bankers, trustees and account administrators. This occurred in Great Britain, Chile and other countries that adopted privatization. In both Great Britain and Chile, privatizing Social Security has been judged a failure because retirees' benefits were greatly decreased by "fees."

Fact - The Security Industry Assn wrote in a 2005 research paper that its member firms will collect at least $39 billion in fees over 75 years from privatized accounts. This $39 billion will be taken directly out of retirees' retirement funds.

Fact - The President’s privatization proposals are not intended to and are unable to "fix" any shortages in the Social Security trust fund.

The real truth is that conservatives have historically detested and attempted to undermine Social Security since Franklin Roosevelt established it in the dark days of the Depression. Conservatives derided it then, and they do now, as an entitlement, akin to welfare. They forget that Americans PAY for their benefits.

Final Fact - Most Americans believe that Social Security should NOT be privatized. There are many excellent, modest proposals to shore up Social Security long-term, that involve raising payroll taxes and/or making very minor benefits cuts decades from now. (And those proposals don't cost $2 trillion.)

Until then, most Americans see no reason to "reform" a reliable, trustworthy system that's not broken.

from the linked article in the OP

""In the past two years, America’s personal savings rate reached its lowest level since the Great Depression. In comparison to other industrialized countries, the United States ranked second to last in personal savings."

Rahm tried to remedy the situation by introducing legislation that would allow companies to automatically enroll their employees in 401 K plans. If he's so concerned about people having money for retirement, why isn't he doing more to shore up the shaky system of pension plans in the US? If he's concerned about Americans not saving enough, why doesn't he do more to allow them to do so, by raising the minimum wage or keeping good paying jobs in the US?

Its clear from his article that his biggest concern isn't for private citizens, but that he's responding to Wall Street. Their dream economy has had a nasty side effect. With all the debt and low wages, people can't afford to save as much as they did before.

Shorter Rahm - lower wages, rising inflation, forced savings, robbing your retirement from Social Security = good DLC policy.

out of office.

He reminds me of a shady used car saleman. (my apologies to unshady used car salemen offended at the comparison to
rahm)

How does Rahm making this suggesting mean THE DEMOCRATS are turning on us?

How can you say THE PARTY is doing this to us when it only takes a few Dems voting with the Republicans to pass one of their bills?

Not to mention that THE PARTY includes people like me, not just the leadership.

with a program that helped our country out of the great depression.

of a corporate capitalist economic system, eh rahm???

Ain't gonna work.

That fucked up house of cards is already falling...

You shouldn't criticize him.

Here, Take one of mine...








the corporate capitalist sympathizers and fellow travelers here on DU won't understand without it.

He's a corrupt corporatist, selling out on the most decent federal system this country has. Nauseating.

This guy is supposed to be a Democrat?

There was a brief time when the Democrats were willing to do a little "wealth transfer" from the rich to the poor.

It appears that only the "loony left" and "fringe candidates" like Kucinich are down with that old, moldy concept any more...

...Leave the Democratic Party, leave us alone.

There is no progressive party, just one that has some progressives in it (big difference).

Privatization of Social Security, whether partial or total, is such an incredibly bad idea. Introducing new risk into the system will inevitably increase the tax burden. Period. Google Chile's experience with privatization. Or Britain's. Only stockbrokers and those getting kickbacks from them benefit from such a scheme.

And secondly, what is up with the phrase "dampens low-income workers' incentive to save"? Low income workers cannot both survive and save. That's kind of what "low-income" entails. Reminds me of Giuliani's remarks about poor people "choosing" not to pay for medical insurance.

The formula for getting people to save more is real simple: Increase real median incomes.

Are DLCers completely brain-dead or are they amoral mercenaries who will say anything in return for money from their corporate masters? Oh wait, I know the answer to that one...

I always appreciate threads like this that warn people against the constant threats to great programs like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and am happy (and relieved) at the large number of people here who were not fooled by the propaganda, jargon, and the "plants" who joined, especially the one who claimed to have had a "family member" who "died," before being able to collect Social Security, then whose proposal for a solution was, incoherently, to raise the age at which people can retire and collect Social Security, presumably putting it even further away. The way they begin to dismantle a program is to pretend that what they are doing will merely be an "add-on," a "supplement," "for only those that want it," etc., making it seem an unconnected activity, but that selection process directed to only certain people and not others is exactly what will kill the entire program by changing it from a huge pool we all contribute to for the insurance and protection of all, to an individual, non-social relationship with a commercial bank/investor. It kills the very purpose of the program.

The "harmless supplement/will only add to and help what is already there" can equally be applied to the commercial/profit-making of Blackwater, which only "helps/does not undermine/saves money for" our Government's armed forces, right? What? How about unregulated charter schools siphoning off funds from the public school system--that doesn't lessen the resources available to the public schools, does it? Of course it does. Does corporate for-profit health insurance luring away healthy premium-payers from the total pool of available money, destroy and bankrupt the public coverage (Blue Cross, etc.) available to poor and middle-income people, destroying the whole system? Of course it does. Do not fall for the lies, or we will face YET ANOTHER corporate-greed-caused fiscal disaster.

Two quick questions about this scheme: 1) "fees should be kept low" etc., "managed by the 'private sector'," etc.--WHY are there corporate fees? Social Security has none, and this will drain the system right there, as others have pointed out many times, such as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; and 2) WHY would the contributions from employers and employees (whatever the hell any of these people think retired and disabled people will now do) be tax-deductible, as mentioned in the "D"LC, Inc. paper? They want us to pay for their profiteering destruction of us, with our tax support, the same as their recent asinine Part D prescription debacle, where they put funds not to helping older people afford prescriptions, but to pharmaceutical and insurance corporations, as a bizarre "lure," so they will cover people they will then make huge profits off of, by unregulated premium and fee-charging!

Recall that the "Clinton Health Care Plan" was to move people from traditional coverage onto HMOs, where their claims were then denied--and yes I do remember the horror of older people who were stabbed in the throat this way, and did not know what to do. Now, of course, everyone pretends she was trying to implement universal health care!

Of course, the real point to all of this, and the real question that should be asked, since Social Security is a completely sound program, benefits are guaranteed, the returns are better than on the stock market, etc.--if they really wanted to help people, and not just themselves and their donors--WHY do they not just increase the contribution from employers and employees directly to the Social Security fund? They will never answer.

If you want to learn more about this issue, and the history, meaning, threats to, and solutions for the single most popular Federal program ever, Social Security, read a book by Nancy J. Altman, who is the best, most knowledgeable person I have ever heard talk on this issue (on C-SPAN a few times), and who wants it saved amd strengthened. The book is "The Battle for Social Security," with subtitle "From FDR's Vision to Bush's Gamble"; it is very well-written and fast-paced, gives a clear understanding of things, with several great ways of solving the problem of funding, etc., for a program that needs very little changing, no matter how the capitalist crooks claim it should be killed, and money turned over...to them. Interestingly, there is a section describing the threat to the program during the 1950s, fought off by the last good Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. As quoted on the book's dust-jacket cover, "The book also traces the continuous thread of a 'tiny splinter group,' as President Eisenhower called opponents of the program, from Prescott Bush (the current president's grandfather) and his contemporaries to George W. Bush."

These people used to be treated as threatening, un-American extremists; now, the "D"LC wants to help them to fight us--to what possible end?

Why should I be paying into a system that more than likely will be gone by the time I'm elderly? I don't have a problem with making changes to it.AND, if I die before reaching the mandatory age, whatever that may be in 30 years, I don't see any of it. How come I couldn't have had a mandatory savings account to leave to someone?

Don't believe the hype. You may die young or you may live to be 100, in which case I'd imagine you'd get a lot more out of SS than you paid in.

And would you like to have sole financial responsibility for all the elderly aunts, uncles, sick and elderly members of your family in their last days? Maybe you're the last of your line and it's not a concern but most people are grateful to have a little help.

The gov't is NOT in the business of creating little nest eggs for people to leave to their heirs.

Like college tuition for survivors? That benefit helped five of us in my family get through college before that asshole Reagan gutted it!

I recall seeing Al Franken give a speech in which he mentioned the only way his wife was able to attend college was with SS benefits from her deceased father.

It helped a lot of people like me afford college after losing a parent. I think I got about $180 a month from SS and $45 from the VA, but that, a few scholarships, a Pell Grant and lots of part time jobs got me through with no debt.

Kids today in that situation have to take out $70 grand or more in loans, such a screwed up system.

I've had widows tell me they couldn't get their freaking widows benefits for more than a year after the funeral. That's absolutely heartless and probably criminal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

so it looks like several hundred thousands in contributions to her run for the presidency could blossom into billions..it`s amazing how little they spend to buy off a politician. will we get that rate of return?

The quote below came directly from the Democratic Leadership Council´s website by way of Democratic Underground. I checked the original article, and it is a correct quote.

Personal accounts would refashion Social Security from a system of wealth transfer into one that also promotes individual wealth creation and broader ownership. Workers would own their accounts and could pass on any assets they didn't use to their heirs. This approach would address a prime source of economic inequality in old age: relatively low savings among poor minority families. According to Rand Corporation economist Jim Smith, the median black or Hispanic older household has no financial wealth at all, making those households utterly dependent on Social Security. Indeed, most economists believe that Social Security's progressive benefit structure dampens low-income workers' incentive to save.

They call this ¨renegotiating the social contract¨ and repeat all the old lies about how Social Security is going broke and can´t be fixed by less drastic means. - A group that has the nerve to call themselves Democrats espouses an idea Bush couldn´t sell to picked audiences during his ¨Bamboozlepalooza Tour¨ a couple of years ago. They can quote all kinds of figures from their think tanks, but they don´t know a damn thing about real life.

So the problem is ¨relatively low savings among poor minority families¨ - well, well, wonder why? Didn´t they think that the decidedly low wages among poor minority families may be the problem? How are you going to save if you can barely meet your bills from payday to payday? Do they know what it is to live in the world of Rent To Own at high interest and predatory payday loan sharks? Do they think you can build financial wealth if only you never go out for pizzas?

Now - how do you think the folks who are prey to irresponsible mortgage brokers, payday loan sharks, and the other shysters who peddle the necessities of life to the poor at punitive interest are going to manage the stock market? Ever heard of penny stocks and the types of frauds those folks can pull on the elderly? Even most middle class whites don´t really understand it; corporate 401Ks come with elaborate explanations to help us choose. We´re still at the mercy of the brokers.

Ah, yes, those 401Ks. I´ve got one and it´s a life saver and I´m proud of it. I try to invest responsibly, but during the last financial downturn I hated to open my quarterly statement. The thing bled money faster than I could put it in, and my co-workers had the same experience. Then we noticed what was happening to the poor people at Enron. Were they dumb? Were they not trying to save for the future? Didn´t we all remember what our parents and grandparents had told us about the Depression?

Nor is the best advice of your broker always correct or in your best interest. Having a little money to invest, my mother went to a well known brokerage firm and bought stock in AT&T. It should have been a cinch, right? Well, AT&T hit a bad spot in the nineties, and her broker suggested she branch out into Lucent, which had just broken off from AT&T. Lucent stayed in the tank until it got rich from Iraq war contracts after she died. The only thing in her portfolio that paid off was some Citigroup stock I had urged her to get. She lost about half her investment.

The DLC likes to pretend that Social Security only covers retirees. What about Social Security Disability? This covers the mentally ill, who certainly can´t make sound decisions. Bush was good enough to say that part of the program wouldn´t be affected. Oh, yeah? Breach Social Security and it all goes down.

Bankruptcies from medical expenses are increasing, and hopeless, unrealistic mortgages are being foreclosed on. Pension plans are turning up underfunded, or with most of the money going to golden parachutes. College tuition is becoming unaffordable. And the Democratic Leadership Council believes we can save for our own retirement?!