I fear we've lost the SS debate, and we were had

[Hamlette]

We've been talking means testing SS for years. My mother's generation (aged 80 now) was appalled by the thought. If it is means tested, they argue, it will become a welfare program complete with the stigma that attaches to being on the dole and the insecurity of knowing what the government gives it can take away.

There is a part of me that wonders if Bush went about this "privatization" campaign knowing if he lost (and he knew he probably would) he'd "fall back" to the means testing solution. Means testing would sound so much better to Americans than privatization that they would jump on the band wagon and go along with it.

The arguments against means testing are so much more nuanced and difficult to sell.

Why shouldn't we means test? We stole the money that was supposed to go to SS and rather than saddle our kids with a debt that might cripple them, shouldn't we stop sending checks to millionaires?

I'm not coming up with liberal arguments here. (I know Bush still wants his private accounts which I do not agree with. I'm just talking about arguments against means testing.)

[Eric J in MN]

1. Just say, "he wants to cut your Social Security benefits." nt

nt

[Vincardog]

2. aWoL's wealthy recipient starts at $20,000. Fuck *

We are winning on the Chimp's plan to piratize SSI and we are winning the Filibuster and we are winning back the Senate in 06. Don't worry be happy.

[liveoaktx]

6. Yup, the "means test" starts at 20k per, so it isn't only the rich

it affects everyone, including middle class. The poor, below 20k, also will not make MORE money than the others, in other words, will not gain from this social security boondoggle, but it will appear to be more because it's cuts for everyone else, including anyone born AFTER 1950.

[ibid]

28. People with current w-2 wages below 20,000 will not be affected - the

rest of us are rich.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. I think with this administration

I'm too paranoid. When we are winning on issues I always wonder why we are. Usually Bush gets his way with things and he's gotten away with so many illegal acts and he's still there. Polls show the public is on our side but that doesn't stop them. They obviously don't care about polls and everybody saw that with the whole Schavio ordeal.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

3. Help me,

what exactly is means testing?

[MissWaverly]

8. it's making sure that you are truly needy

when my dad went into the nursing home, his bank account was emptied
to help pay, God forbid he would have been sitting in the nursing
home with his life savings still in the bank untouched. This does not apply here, since everyone knows that these deductions are in
everyone's paycheck, since we earned the money in the first place, why should we have to prove that we're eligible to receive it back.

Argument: Social Security = earned income by America's workers = It's our money = give it back when we're old and need it and NO EXCUSES!

[FreedomAngel82]

35. I agree

My grandfather told me and my dad a story once dealing with his older brother. He was a little boy and his older brother had $5 in the bank. Back when he was little (he's 72 now) $5 was a lot of money. His brother went to the bank to get the money and it was gone! He never got his $5. You can't always trust private accounts. This is why SS is very important to this country. My question is: if this does happen (God forbid) and they do take away SS if the next president is democratic can he put it back in place?

[MissWaverly]

38. We'll get our money

When hard core bush supporters are peeling his bumper sticker off their cars and sending in their party affiliation cards, the Republicans are scared. The American people are NOT going to stand for this, NO WAY, NO HOW, even if they get a temporary cut back, it
will be a major issue in '08 and it will be restored.

[stray cat]

9. The current S.S. benefits are matched to wage inflation

Meaning S.S. benefits continue to increase - Bush plans to prevent the growth in S.S. benefits for inflation for anyone making more than 20,000 dollars a year. Therefore anyone making more than 20,000 will see their benefits decrease over time compared to what they would make under the current system.

[FreedomAngel82]

36. So like

everything he does it's backwards?

[BillZBubb]

11. Means testing is

when the benefits are determined by need. If you have a lot of money, you don't need help, so your benefit is reduced or eliminated. If you have no money, you get the maximum benefit. Etc.

[ikojo]

30. If one is means tested one will receive the least

amount some Republican or Democratic weenie deems necessary to eat dog or cat food.

I have a trust fund friend who doesn't have to worry about money ever (she's in her 40s and knows she has enough even if she lives to be 100 and never works another day in her life). She is in support of rich people not receiving social security. I have told her that I support all Americans receiving social security because once it is means tested it will be derided as an "entitlement" program and subject to all the prejudices that go along with that designation.

[ibid]

34. means testing is Changing the rules based on income - but only when

the change gives more to the poor.

If the change gives more to the rich it is called an incentive to save.

People have been taught to be ashamed of being on welfare, proud if they are not on welfare - and indeed told that the "work ethic" as defined above is what makes us great.

So to change Social Security from a paid for from your own taxes entitlement to a means tested welfare benefit is a way to decrease social support for the whole idea of a Social Security system.

[NAO]

4. Means Testing is the Kiss of Death. It's used to build resentment against

a program and make it seem unfair.

See this thread I started the night of *'s televised gibbering:

Income test for benefits = kiss of death. Equal access = broad support.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1751641&mesg_id=1751641

Means testing for a program is a sure way to destroy public support for it.

Think about it: when there is a burglar in your home and you call the Police, do they ask you how much you make? If you make too much, do they tell you that you do not qualify for state-funded law enforcement services and that you must call a private firm and self-pay? Of course not. Everyone needs police protection and it is provided to everyone regardless of income, no questions asked.

Everyone strongly supports police and fire protection because everyone needs them and they are there for everyone. Really, they are "Social Law Enforcement" and "Social Fire Protection".

Why shouldn't Health Care and Social Security be the same way?

If you have a burglar in your home, the police come, no questions asked. But if you have a bacteria or a cancer in your body...Do you have insurance? If not, do you make little enough to qualify for state-funded services?

Means testing fuels resentment toward the poor for being 'freeloaders' and ends up destroying support for things we ALL need. Like health care. And social security.

I seriously wonder if *'s gibbering about "more benefits for the poorest" is not meant to make Social Security seem like a "handout to freeloaders" to fuel resentment at people who do not take "personal responsibility".

[livebait]

10. That's a good point

The means test, on some levels, sounds like a great idea: I am all for some redistributive mechanisms in today's society. The problem is that most people are not for redistribution, and so programs that go down that road become vulnerable targets for future cost-cutters.

[wryter2000]

12. Welcome to DU, livebait

:hi:

[NAO]

40. Why is this not clear to Democratic leaders and ad-writers?

I don't understand why they don't get this simple notion and use it to build broad support for all kinds of programs that could benefit everyone.

Education, Social Security, Health Care could be framed in the same terms as Police Protection and Fire Protection:

- something everyone needs

- something that it is right and necessary for the government to provide

- something that would be abhorrent to privatize

- something we all pay for (social) and we all are protected by (security)

[Telly Savalas]

45. Exactly. And compromises on such issues are pointless.

Any social programs proposed by the Democrats are going to be labelled socialism by the radical right organ grinder, so we might as well be proposing things like universal health care instead of fighting for tepid causes like "affordable health care". We don't compromise on other essential public goods by having "affordable police protection" or "affordable fire protection".

[SoCalDem]

16. Yes.. and there will be future ads run.,..showing a

SS Grandma with the AUDACITY to purchase a STEAK with her SS check, instead of Kraft macaroni n cheese.. Who does she think she IS??? Buying STEAK with OUR money:sarcasm:


SS will eventually morph into a card...like food stamps have now..and people will be JUDGED ...

Boomer-oldsters will become the "Cadillac welfare queens" of tomrrow's ads./.

Karl is probably drawing up plans for those ads as we speak:eyes:

[Hamlette]

19. thanks NAO, good argument

those were/are the arguments of my parents' generation and when you say them, they make sense. For me (so far) it was public schools. I refused to take my kid to a private or public geek school because of the unleveling argument. When people like me (educated, adequate resources) leave the system we are less likely to fight to save it.

(I didn't see the speech...I can't stand to watch him....I didn't realize the cut off was $20K but if he compromises up from there we need good arguments. They will be running ads with rich Floridian retirees cashing their SS checks to go to the casinos before we know it.)

[NAO]

37. related point: School Vouchers, private security = police tax credit

School Vouchers: Should people who hire private security get police tax credit?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=15933&mesg_id=15933

School Vouchers, where people can send their children (or even other people's children) to private schools, including religious schools, and then receive a tax credit equal to the amount of tax they pay to support public education is becoming very popular and is being strongly pushed by the religious right. This is a horrible idea, and it is undercutting the quality of public education.

One way to help people "get it" is to use an analogy with another state-provided public service where it it also possible to hire a private service. All our tax dollars support police protection, just like all our tax dollars support public education. Now if I hire a private security guard, should I then receive a tax credit equal to the amount of my taxes that would go to pay for public police protection?

Imagine if that were true. The rich would hire private security guards and public police protection would go way down in quality. And that is exactly what is happening with private school vouchers.

[stray cat]

5. Bush's means test will hit anyone above the poverty line.

Anybody who makes more than that will have their benefits cut. Also when will he measure someones salary - will you get penalized if you scimped and saved all of your life and have more saved for retirement as a result. Will he base it on your ending salary before retirement eventhough you may have only been well payed your last 10 years.

Bush is attacking every member of the middle class while saving his estate and dividend tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Bush intends his means test to hit anyone above the poverty line.

[MichiganVote]

7. I didn't pay money into this for years only to be told by a bunch

of self inflated millionaires that I don't "qualify" for the goddamn money that I provided to the government to run this program. I am incensed that the thieving bastards we call "politicians" in this country have robbed us all. The Bush republicans will try to frame the debate into a case of democrats who don't want to help the poor but THAT is not the issue. No one better than this administration has squandered our money, lost it, stolen it and now they or those who support this plan want to deny responsibility. Bullshit. We who have paid the damn money for decades want exactly what we were promised.

[flamin lib]

13. We're being sidetracked here! Ignore that little red fishy!

Bush is re-defining SS as a retirement plan only--no survivors benefits or anything else. Don't let him do that!!!

It's an insurance policy as well as a retirment account.

[liveoaktx]

14. Vid Clip-Jim Moran on means test

Moran -Means Test

[sandnsea]

15. Take away middle class perks??

lol. This is a get the popcorn moment!

Means testing has always been hated just slightly less than venereal disease. We just elminated taxes on social security above the poverty line, because people hate it. Middle class America wants their social security, all of it.

Republicans are out of touch with the common needs of working people. Republicans always have been. It'll be easier to knock down means testing than privatization.

This is a game of chicken. Who is going to say raise the cap first. Democrats have got to make sure it's the Republicans who do it.

[stray cat]

26. Take away the power of the middle class and its safety nets.

Bush wants to sap the power of the middle class because they have the most clout to interfere with the plans for his wealthy cronies.

[stray cat]

17. Call it part of the Republican/Bush war on the middle class.

[Wright Patman]

18. Empire

That's the key word. Normal nations can afford stable, extensive and enduring safety nets. Empires cannot. Empires implode in chaos.

Once BOTH major parties (I remember Madeleine Albright begging Powell to let her use our "superb military" since we are, according to her, the "indispensable nation") decided we were an empire, this dissolution of domestic programs was bound to happen.

Here are a couple of despicable quotes from her I found:

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future."

To Colin Powell, who felt that the U.S. should not commit
military forces to Bosnia until there was a clear political
objective: "What's the point of having this superb military
that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
"I thought I would have an aneurysm," Powell later wrote. "American GIs were not toy soldiers to be moved around on somesort of global game board."

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/albright.htm

If a so-called liberal such as Albright has this kind of mindset (we already know the knuckle-dragging neoconservatives with their reptilian 'bomb the entire world back into the stone age and seize their natural resources" mentality), one can see how doomed the various domestic social programs of America are.

We chose to believe the fearmongers of the past few decades and spent ourselves into bankruptcy, much as the Soviet Union did before us.

[RightWingLeftist]

31. We are not an empire.....yet....but it's close.....

[Bill Segundo]

20. SS is a welfare program.

Why not admit it and make it work? Means test, raise caps NOW instead of waiting until the problem gets worse. The only thing standing in the way is a generation that put their dollar in and wants their two dollars out before SS goes belly up.

[B Calm]

25. It's not a welfare program.. It's an insurance policy. SS could remain

solvent if only Bush were forced to stop giving away the SS surplus under the mask of tax cuts for the rich!

[MissWaverly]

39. why can't I have 2 dollars back

I was earning money back in 1971, money went a lot further back then,
I was not going to the disco with the money but paying every 2 weeks to contribute for my old age, that was 34 years ago, (and I am asking for that money that was invested to double in that time), my mutual funds that I have had for 10 years have doubled, why is that so unrealistic. I plan to work another 13-15 years, why is this being selfish that for 47 years of contributions, there is some perks back.

[Bill Segundo]

41. Can't get 2 for 1 in such a bad investment.

The money you paid in is already gone. You didn't contribute to YOUR old age, but somebody elses. There are NO guarantees with SS, no matter what some politicians tell you.

The only thing that has doubled is SS taxes, which are terribly regressive.

[B Calm]

42. What is it you don't get? SS is not an investment program, it's

an insurance program!! 401k and IRA's are investment programs..

[MissWaverly]

43. no, it isn't

there's always plenty of money for Rummie's toys and George's pet projects, you surely don't think that they are serving sardines at the White House do you? They can just put a spin and switch the money back from somewhere else. They leached this money out not for old people but for George's pet projects.

[sandnsea]

47. YES ,Mr Segundo, I DID

That was the whole point of the restructuring of SS in the 80's, boomers pay extra into the trust fund to prepare for OUR OWN RETIREMENT. If Bush hadn't given all that money away to the wealthy, there WOULD BE MONEY TO PAY ME BACK. Just try and take my trust fund money, just fucking try it. Me, and a whole lot of middle aged women like me, will be on that White House with our "don't you dare cross mama" looks on. Not my social security, and not my children's disability or survivors insurance either.

Nothing like several million menopausal women to get things back in line.

[smoogatz]

21. I'm not entirely opposed to means testing.

But it should kick in at $200,000, not $20,000. We should propose rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% as a way of balancing SS's books. I think it's a political winner. Eat the rich.

[Cleita]

46. So when $200,000 becomes worth $20,000, then when

should it kick in? I mean in 1960 $20,000 was considered upper strata income. Means testing is a way of taking away choices for people on fixed incomes. It doesn't address inflation or the fact that people pay into Social Security no matter how rich they are and therefore deserve the right to start getting their money back when the time comes.

How about means testing to collect life insurance?

[progressivejazz]

22. W really screwed up here.

Poor people don't vote in as high a proportion as the middle class.

He's just promised to cut the benefits of just about all the people who vote.

We can only pray the idiot Repubs in Congress sign on to this dumb idea.

[wishlist]

23. Bush isn't talking about means testing, but about reducing benefit formula

This debate has gotten even more confusing to most people. But I am sure that 'means testing' is not an accurate description. Bush is talking about changing the basic indexing method used to compute Social Security benefit rates:

Under Bush's plan 65 year old billionaire Bill Gates who has been paying the SS payroll tax on $90,000 or so earned income (capped) will still get the same amount of Social Security as fully mortgaged Joe Blow who never made over $90,000 but both of them will get less than under the current indexing method. Everyone will get less except those people whose earnings stay below $25000. They will be in a holding pattern- (makes no sense to reduce their SS since then they will qualify for welfare benefits).

Bush's plan will allow the SS system to continue providing a huge surplus for much longer to be used to prop up the huge federal deficits his policies have created. The biggest impact will be on those making $25,000 to $90,000 who depend on SS for most of their retirement security and who will have to continue working longer to afford retirement if his plan goes through.

[Hamlette]

27. ack, wishlist, you're right

since its the most regressive tax, the GOP loves it, make the poor pay for government so the government can give it to rich companies.

WAAA. I want my mommy! These guys are evil. Worst part is, they have convinced themselves that its the american way.

[sandnsea]

48. That's means testing

The second you do anything to provide benefits according to income, instead of equal benefits based on pay-in, you're on another path to pitting people against each other and destroying social security. It's a rotten idea. And couples have to earn somewhere down around $15,000 to qualify for assistance; my dad's is about $12,000 just for him, and he doesn't qualify.

We will have to raise the caps from $90,000 and I think that should be enough.

[leftofthedial]

24. the little bushturd and his minions had (and have) no SS plan

Their only concept is to stir as much shit as possible, occasionally taking a handful of it and flinging it at the wall. They figure eventually something will stick and then they can cobble together the "plan" most likely to destroy the program.

[B Calm]

44. DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY that's their plan. The cheap labor

cons are salivating over the idea of millions of old desperate people to hire as cheap labor!

[FreedomAngel82]

29. Makes me wonder

He's still going around trying to promote his plan. He knows he's losing the battle. I worry he has something up his sleeve too. The republicans would love to get rid of SS and claim it as a huge victory. I just hope people don't fall for it if he does have an alternative plan and I hope the democrats keep on his heels.

[alfredo]

33. Means testing= screw the middle class

[Toucano]

49. I never favored means testing.

Bush isn't talking about millionaires anyway. People will catch on to that pretty quickly.

The sky is not falling. The argument is hardly lost.