Democrats should take on the issue of Social Security and be honest

[cidliz2004]

and admit to the American People that the reason why Social Security is in trouble is that our Government ...including Democrats have borrowed from the fund for years and they have never paid it back and that they (the Government)needs to pay back the fund.

If they do that I believe that they can take the lead on this issue and regain respect of the American People by being honest and open.
This is a way to control the dialog and to boldly set out and show some courage and integrity.

[Vincardog]

1. Social Security is NOT in trouble. The lock box funds are required by law

to be there. aWoL wants to take all that money and disappear it. There is NO crisis YET. Stop the Lies.

[Pam-Moby]

3. Social Security is NOT in trouble

This is bull shit that it is in trouble. GW needs to stop with all of the lies. He wants to get into that fund because he wants to use the money elsewhere. Well if we allow GW to take our money and put it into the stock market. What happens when it crashes...? Will you have enough money to support yourself then? I know that I will not.

[papau]

2. There is no problem with Soc Sec - but selling the gov bonds now and

buying equities makes a lot of sense.

Let someone other than the aged hold the bonds caused by the need to fund the Bush tas break for the wealthy.

[whistle]

4. Pay back borrowed money, are you kidding? That would mean...

...no tax breaks for the rich. As for the social security surplus, well that was there in the first place to allow these elected representatives of both sides of the isle to raid and steal from it for their favorite programs. The social security surplus was a forced savings and loan account which BushCo has successfully stolen. Now they want to bankrupt social security itself so that none of the borrowed surplus need ever be paid back. Future social security payments will just go away after 20 years.

[ErinGoBraghLess]

5. Kerry Blew this issue

In the debates, I think Kerry came across as do-nothing on the topic of S.S. whereas Bush gave the illusion that he was trying to find a solution. The old "action versus inaction" ploy. Sometimes voters would like to see action even if it's stupid just to say "At least he's trying to do something. That other guy is just sitting there." Kerry's approach seemed to say everything is fine, I wouldn't change a thing, move along. Well something has to change. God, why can't politicians have bigger balls?!?! I think the reason we like Dean is the reason the Right likes Buchanan --- at least the guy says what he thinks and isn't afraid of offending.

That being said, I think Bush's proposal of individual accounts is silly because he's only talking about 4% of the FICA tax. That's 4% of 6.2% which is so minimal as to be useless. If someone makes $50,000 a year, that's like $200 bucks a year put into an account. WooHoo!!! After ten years maybe I can buy a sofa. So it gives the illusion that he's doing something to help the people, but really it's completely insignificant.

I do think S.S. needs major overhaul. We work our butts off for years paying huge amounts in and the government takes it and spends it willy-nilly on so much pork. And then the Government says here's your $600 a month. Big Deal.