MyDD :: Democratic Social Security plan

Democratic Social Security plan

by Painter2004, Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:30:11 AM EST

After thinking about Socail Security for awhile I have come to the conclusion that Democrats need a Progressive reform plan for Socail Security. One I think is to lift the cap on Social Security and also Medicare so the rich elitist pay their FAIR SHARE and two make the first 10k or 20k of income FICA tax except, but still give people credits for that money earned. Now this a far superior plan to the Bush plan and this could truly encourage personal invest while not negatively affecting Social Security in any way (no increase in the retirement age, no benifit cuts, and longterm fiscal stability) and it's far less complicated.
There are some details that would need to be worked out for instance; what should be the cap for employers share; should their be a cap at all on employers?
I believe Democrats should put forward a progressive plan, something that all Democrats can stay they stand for.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

Democrats have a plan (none / 0)

It is called Social Security. It is the most successful government program in the history of our country. It works.

P.S. It also takes care of workers who become disabled while at the same time taking care of the those who rely upon workers who die.

Democrats stand for economic security.

by blogswarm on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:36:49 AM EST

Re: Democrats have a plan (none / 0)

Bush and the Republican party cannot be trusted with Social Security reform. Even if both houses of Congress voted on an ideal reform plan, there is no way to guarantee that they wouldn't take the bill into an exclusive Republican House/Senate reconciliation conference, like they did with the Medicare drug bill, and come out with an entirely different bill. The only question would be how many hours the Republicans would allow before requiring a vote on the final bill.

There is plenty of time to make minor adjustments to Social Security when we have a Democrat in the White House and at least one house of Congress.

I was wondering Bob, would it be technically possible to propose Clinton type legislation to place all or part of the Social Security surplus into a dedicated market investment pool, in a way that would prevent the Republicans from making unacceptable changes in a conference committee?

I'm not sure if the legislative restrictions on what types of changes are permitted in a conference committee are adequate to protect even the most progressive and modest legislative changes from Republican chicanery.

I don't trust Bush, DeLay, Hastert and Frist as far as I can throw a Cooper Mini. I'm wondering if it is safe to allow even the most innocuous negotiation with the Republicans on Social Security.

By the way, Lou Dobbs had an interesting teaser when he signed off tonight. He hinted that he was having a Democrat on that was a key to successful negotiations on Social Security. Do you have any idea who he is having on tomorrow?

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats have a plan (none / 0)

You missed the point, I'm just stating that Democrats should be for making Socail Security and Medicare tax progressive taxes instead of the very regressive taxes the curently are.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:35:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats have a plan (none / 0)

There are any number of progressive and legitimate reforms that are possible. The question is whether it is legislatively possible to write a S.S. bill that the Republicans would not screw up. After the way they took the Medicare drug bill into an exclusive Republican House/Senate conference how can they be trusted?

The best intentioned legislation that made the minor reforms necessary to improve Social Security could be completely mangled in a House/Senate reconciliation conference that the Democrats were not even allowed to attend. Then they would give Democrats four or five hours to vote on the final bill.

Whatever steps need to be taken to improve Social Security can be made when we control the White House.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:20:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Should we raise the minimum age from 65 to 70? (none / 0)

This seems reasonable to me. Although it's the type of thing that AARP goes nuts over.

My point is: in 1935, when soc sec was created, almost all of the people paying into it were men and they lived to be only about 52 on average.

The age of 65 was created as sort of a pie-in-the-sky figure. Like, if you lived this long, you deserve to spend your last few years somewhere other than in a coal mine or working on the Hoover Dam.

It would be comparable to setting the age of 90 as the minimum age today, since almost half of the payers are now women and the average lifespan of payers has gone from 52 to 79.

Also, how come there are so many people getting SSI who's only disability is being bi-polar. (I am not making this up.)

100% of those who get benefits by claiming they are bi-polar are nothing more than lazy people who are willing to lie to get out of having to work like the rest of us. If we cut them off of the rolls, we'd save millions.

All of this can be done without raising taxes.

by rayek on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:44:08 AM EST

Re: Should we raise the minimum age from 65 to 70? (none / 0)

You seem to have been provided with some bad information rayek. You claim there are "so many" people getting SSi whose only disability is being bi-polar. I would bet a dime to a dollar that fewer than 3% or the people collecting SSI are bi-polar. You also have been mis-informed about bi-polar mental illness. It is a serious affliction that can be treated with proper treatment and medication.

If you are genuinely interested in the problems with raising the retirement age, please go to Raising the Retirement Age: The wrong direction for Social Security.

The Economic Policy Institute has a long list of helpful articles about particular topics. You can also find an extensive list of specific topics at eRiposte.

I hope this information has been helpful.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 03:23:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Should we raise the minimum age from 65 to 70? (none / 0)

Reagan already raised the retirement age, it's already 67 for younger people and it's 66 for people close to retirement. The retirement age should not be raised ever, ever we just need to tax the super rich, damn someone making 90 thousand pays the same as someone making 500 billion.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:40:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Should we raise the minimum age from 65 to 70? (none / 0)

Um, for some of us, the minimum age is not 65, but rather 66 or 67. Depending on your birth date, the minimum age is already going up.

by weinerdog43 on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:40:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Should we raise the minimum age from 65 to 70? (none / 0)

Also, how come there are so many people getting SSI who's only disability is being bi-polar. (I am not making this up.)

Then support it with some data.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about social security survivors' benefits? (none / 0)

The current social security system offers benefits to the surviving spouse and children of a deceased individual whose social security benefits still exist. For example, after my father's early death in 1978, my brothers received partial funding while they were students. My mother, who was a homemaker and who was still raising my young brothers, also received survivor's benefits, based on my father's social security earnings.

Has anyone investigated what will happen to these social security benefits under the "Bush plan"? If so, I'd appreciate hearing about potential effects on surviving spouses--primarily women who have not earned their own social security benefits because they have worked in the home unpaid--and I'd like to hear about effects on educational benefits for surviving children of deceased workers who have earned social security benefits.

Will all of these benefits be lost?

by lillian on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:05:47 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.