Congressman: Democrat Leadership Threatening 'Retribution'

[Rekaar.]

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6564

Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) was asked at a CATO conference in Washington yesterday whether he had persuaded any Democrats to back his plan to rescue Social Security from its financial troubles. Under his legislation (HR 4851), no new taxes would be needed to pay for "transition costs," participation in the new system would be voluntary and individuals would be allowed to divert a portion of their payroll tax into a mutual fund.

A questioner from the audience, stressing his own Democratic credentials, said he believed Ryan's plan should attract members of his own party and wondered whether the Wisconsin lawmaker had secured any Democratic sponsors. Ryan said he had been working with friends on the "other side of the aisle" who were favorable toward his solution, but he faced an enormous problem: intense pressure on his colleagues from the minority leadership.

"We were in planning stages [with friendly Democrats]," said Ryan. But each essentially told him: "I like what you're doing. I like this bill. I think it's the right way to go. But my party leadership will break my back. The retribution that they are promising us is as great as I have ever seen. We can't do it."
Ryan said he believed the only thing that can assure passage is an outpouring from America's grassroots.

discuss

[Lohrno]

Good. We really don't need these "private accounts."

[Mak]

That's politics. It works both ways. It sucks, but that's the way it happens.

[Marbus]

"SOCIAL SECURITY" it's not a retirement plan and it's NOT made to support people educated or wealthy enough to be planning a real retirement... Bush is a moron and this plan is the most assanine thing he has developed yet that dosen't kill brown people ... well it probably would in the long run but not with bullets.

Ok... serously, it's not the right plan and not the right idea... repeat SOCIAL SECURITY... make special note of the word SOCIAL.

Cheers!
Marb

[Lohrno]

Ok... serously, it's not the right plan and not the right idea... repeat SOCIAL SECURITY... make special note of the word SOCIAL.

Cheers!
Marb

And Security. As in - guaranteed to be there, which stocks inherently aren't.

[Jice Virago]

The Reps are just as bad to their own rank and file who don't tow the party line, if not worse. Just look at what they did to McCain for running against Bush in the 2k primaries. But in all honestly, given how utterly limp dicked the Dems have been in confronting Rep BS these guys have nothing to fear from their own party.

[Chmee]

"SOCIAL SECURITY" it's not a retirement plan and it's NOT made to support people educated or wealthy enough to be planning a real retirement...

Really? I think you are mistaken. Social Security is not means tested, you are eligable for benefits no matter how well off you are last time I checked. You also get to pay in no matter how meager your income.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Wow. Talk about a bunch of negative miserable ungrateful people. The government is trying to help everyone out and make the SS system better and last longer and all you can do is fucking complain.

If you want to educate yourself on wether this works, read up on the Thrift Savings Plan. It has been making government employess very happy for a long time now.

This suggestion to save SS is based off the very sucessful TSP. It is not some off the wall idea cooked up by the Bush administration.

Educate yourselves. You'll find the world isn't as grey as you think it is.

[pyrella]

that's a pretty scary propaganda site! but totally unbiased =P

[Lohrno]

Ok then tell me how it is guarateed to be there and of equal or greater value to what SS pays out.

I'm not usually "grateful" when someone tries to ram a dick up my ass.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I'm not usually "grateful" when someone tries to ram a dick up my ass.

Happens a lot eh?

[Toshira]

Newt Gingrich was the master at this actually, Mid.

Educate yourself first, you useless fuck.

[Lohrno]

Happens a lot eh?

Figuratively speaking, it has been yes...

Let's see -- Useless Iraq war started by guy I nor almost half the country voted for, resulting in damaged economy, meaning my dollar is worth less. Other citizens of the world are less likely to like me because I am American. I am now less secure.

In addition, due to our lack of diplomacy, the world hates us more.

This - Which threatens to undermine my future should I not become as successful.

Permanent Tax cuts - which harm the economy more.

Possible Iran war which threatens to pull me and/or my friends into another useless conflict...

FCC Crackdown

I'm sorry but I can't help but thinking I am getting raped.

Still waiting for a response as to how this is guaranteed to work better and be more safe and secure and pay out the same or more than the current system...

[Chmee]

Ok then tell me how it is guarateed to be there and of equal or greater value to what SS pays out.

I'm not usually "grateful" when someone tries to ram a dick up my ass.

Part of the whole argument is that SS isn't guaranteed to be there (at least at the level of benefits currently promised. SS relies on current workers paying in to support current retirees. But demographics are changing, people are living longer, so there are fewer workers relatively to support the retired population. Which casts considerable doubt on the financial solvency of SS. Private accounts aren't really an answer to the short term financial problems of social security either. I am not particularly fond of them (just lower the amount I have to contribute and let me do what I want with my money) although they could help move the program to a better long term financial footing. Other measures need to be taken to address the short term shortfall.

[Lohrno]

Well true...but my point was basically that it would be us moving to a less secure system, would it not? I mean I can't really fathom how this would be a good idea.

[Aruman]

Ok then tell me how it is guarateed to be there and of equal or greater value to what SS pays out.

I'm not usually "grateful" when someone tries to ram a dick up my ass.

Might want to read about what the proposal is before you ask that.

It's not meant to replace SS, and it isn't mandatory, it's voluntary under his plan right now.

I also saw something interresting in the paper... where someone suggested that when a child is born, the Government automatically sets up an account for the child, and deposits 1000.00 into the account. It cannot be touched at all until retirement.

You are able to make deposits to the account through your lifetime also, up to a certain amount.

[Keverian FireCry]

But demographics are changing, people are living longer, so there are fewer workers relatively to support the retired population. Which casts considerable doubt on the financial solvency of SS.

This is exactly why we need to kill off our elderly.

[Lohrno]

Might want to read about what the proposal is before you ask that.

It's not meant to replace SS, and it isn't mandatory, it's voluntary under his plan right now.

If it's voluntary, how do they expect to keep the same money being put into the current system?

[Aruman]

Might want to read about what the proposal is before you ask that.

It's not meant to replace SS, and it isn't mandatory, it's voluntary under his plan right now.

If it's voluntary, how do they expect to keep the same money being put into the current system?

You still pay into the SS fund, but part of it can be diverted to one of these accounts.

Your SS benefit payment will be reduced if you take payments from the account in some kind of proportion, which I don't recall.

Supposedly the account should outperform whatever the government uses for the current SS system.

[nobody]

the thing that bothered me the most in the article is that it shows how many of those in congress are more loyal to their party (both party's) than the people that elected them.

[Zaelath]

Might want to read about what the proposal is before you ask that.

It's not meant to replace SS, and it isn't mandatory, it's voluntary under his plan right now.

If it's voluntary, how do they expect to keep the same money being put into the current system?

You still pay into the SS fund, but part of it can be diverted to one of these accounts.

Your SS benefit payment will be reduced if you take payments from the account in some kind of proportion, which I don't recall.

Supposedly the account should outperform whatever the government uses for the current SS system.

Correct, so what happens is this:

The upper middle class and the rich divert money away from social security into private accounts. They already do this now, this simply allows them to reduce the cash flow to social security.

There are far more poor people than rich, so the money that's left has to stretch even further than it does now, so the rich retain money they don't really need and pass it on to their decendants.

Social security MUST go bankrupt faster than the current prediction unless the payments are cut substantially. Either way, the poor get fucked in the ass.

Of course, this is a boon to the black man, President Bizarro said so.

[Drasta]

they should just take the money we wake for social security and put it in a bank account for us until we turn 65 and then were able to use it and don't have to pay taxes on the money in it

[Dalmoth_IO]

There are far more middle income people than rich or poor.

[Nick]

And?

[Marbus]

For now there are...

[Rekaar.]

they should just take the money we wake for social security and put it in a bank account for us until we turn 65 and then were able to use it and don't have to pay taxes on the money in it

that was the plan.


Then they spent it.

[Fash]

no thats not the fucking plan... and if you think its YOUR money when you collect SS, you've been under a rock.

YOUR money is paying for the people currently receiving social security...

When you're old enough to collect, it will be someone elses money you're collecting...

The Bush plan is to ADD to that by allowing you to divert a % from what you're putting into EVERYONE ELSES SS into a private account just for you.

[Rekaar.]

they should just take the money we wake for social security and put it in a bank account for us until we turn 65 and then were able to use it and don't have to pay taxes on the money in it

that was the plan.


Then they spent it.

[Fash]

that was still never the plan... ever.

[Chidoro]

There are far more middle income people than rich or poor.

What is considered middle income these days anyway?

[Rekaar.]

that was still never the plan... ever.

Alright, I'll gladly stand corrected if you can give me a source.

[Fash]

are you talking about taking the interest gained from our SS contributions and putting that away?..

if not...

from ssa.gov:

Social Security benefits are based on earnings averaged over most of a worker's lifetime. Your actual earnings are first adjusted or "indexed" to account for changes in average wages since the year the earnings were received. Then we calculate your average monthly indexed earnings during the 35 years in which you earned the most. We apply a formula to these earnings and arrive at your basic benefit, or "primary insurance amount" (PIA). This is the amount you would receive at your full retirement age, for most people, age 65. However, beginning with people born in 1938 or later, that age will gradually increase until it reaches 67 for people born after 1959. For more information, see http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/ageincrease.htm

your benefits have little to do with how much you've put in.. an average of your 35 highest paid year salaries, adjusted for average wage increases, into some nifty 500 page government calculation, and tada, you get X... far from putting your SS taxes into a bank account and then collecting from it at age 65.

[Rekaar.]

I know how the current system works fash, I wasn't talking about that. I'm referring to the gap between when the bill was signed into law in 38 and benefits began in 42. Splitting hairs though, it isn't really that important.