Let's give Pelosi some credit on Social Security
By John Amato Friday May 30, 2008 7:30pmI remember just after the '04 election and Bush was standing on his pulpit talking about spending all this "political capital" he now owned. And he was going to spend some of it on fixing Social Security. By fix, he meant privatize it, which would have destroyed it much like Bear Stearns got obliterated. The media man crush love for Bush was oozing out of most of the fish wraps and TV sets. MSNBC almost immediately hired Tucker Carlson to prove to Bush that they did indeed love him dearly.
Anyway, all the liberal blogs stuck together and said no way. The idiot media talking heads were screaming at the Democratic Party to come up with some ideas to fix Social Security or it would be bankrupt by 2018 or something. They stood fast and as Duncan points out, it was Nancy Pelosi that told them to shove it.
Dirty f*&king hippie bloggers knew how this game worked, that if the Democrats offered a plan they'd ensure that something would happen and that something would inevitably be pretty much what Bush wanted. Our plan was to not offer any plan, and in fact go nuclear on any Dem who did try to offer a plan.
As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. Never. Is never good enough for you?" Pelosi defiantly said to one member
Bush went on his Social Security tour and a funny thing happened. Americans loved Social Security more than Conservatives thought. It's the most hated program from FDR's new deal that Conservatives were trying to dismantle and they figured this would be their only chance to destroy it once and for all. The more Bush toured and shouted his lies about it to his hand picked loyalist crowds that gathered around him, the worse it did in the opinion polls. And that was that.
On the 78th day of a 60-day roadshow, the president's nationwide Social Security tour, even to some of his own aides, has the feel of a past-its-prime Broadway production that has been held over while other, newer shows steal the spotlight.
Login or Register to post comments.
Do I HAVE to give her credit???
I never understood why SS was created?
Did u hear the BIG NEWS.......... Obama has quit his church...... evidently it is to radical for his political career.
MSNBC isnt covering it.... they have another one of those prison reruns on instead.
MSNBC is reminding me of FAUX NEWS....... and not in a good way.
Thanks for Social Security, Nancy.
Now, will you tell Hillary Clinton that her campaign is over? Thanks. We need a Democrat in the White House next year.
Oh, and please stop letting any more Iraq funding through without dates attached for our soldiers to come home.
I hope Obama takes to heart this cautionary tale when McShrub tries to sell the same snake oil in the upcoming election campaign.
Roger from Ohio @ 2:
I don't think it's big news. It is news though. He should have done this along time ago.
No
mudshark @ 5:
It's big news in that this in no way makes it go away, mudshark. It just brings all the unanswered questions to the forefront. But I do agree with you that he should've done it a long time ago- even though that wouldn't have been easy for him to do, I'm sure.
Roger from Ohio @ 2:
MSNBC covered this about an hour and a half before you posted your comment. Sorry you missed it.
dennis @ 7:
The GOP were never going to stop throwing this at Obama. So the smart play was for him to distance himself from the church.
Now, If he would have done this immediately after the Rev's comments. The GOP would have nothing to throw at him. But he hesitated , now he's going to take some hits because of it. Because the repug's will use this over and over and over.
[ Back on Topic Please.Site Monitor]
mudshark @ 5:
It will be news tomorrow no doubt. The Sunday Soaps, I mean Shows.
Sure, sure, Nancy Pelosi saved Social Security from the nimrods who want to let Wall Street play in the big money pile, but, but, but, what we really need to talk about is more bullsh*t about Obama and his church, 'cause that's, like, real important.
I wrote in my latest blog entry: The Democratically controlled Congress has remained mum on investigating and prosecuting the Bush Administration over its plethora of crimes out of fear of "rocking the boat in an election year" for fear of hurting the Democrats chances in November. But what if McCain wins? It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility with a divided Democratic Party. Will it of been worth it... passing up the opportunity to prosecute Bush, Cheney and the whole clan, only to end up with a Republican President anyway?"
Then the revelations from Scottie came out. In 1999, the GOP wasn't worried about "the next election" when they impeached Bill Clinton. If anything, it helped them in November. Congress should not allow the Bushies to escape prosecution simply because they are affraid of affecting the November outcome. November shouldn't factor into the equation at all.
It's as though Nancy likes nothing on the table.
...makes it easier to clean I suppose.
Obama and his church can be on another thread.
THANKS, John, for giving Pelosi credit where it is due.
I was mad as hell at Pelosi till I read John Deans latest book,Broken Government.In it he talks about how the whole process of government was shredded,and Pelosi rather than go for impeachment went to take on the job of rebuilding the process;the way things work in the House,rather than getting revenge for the damage Bush and the Rs had done to it.In order to do this she had to take impeachment off the table and to get to work repairing the damage.Time will tell,and I`m still pissed that Bush and the criminals are still trying their best to ruin this country while making a ton of money.
Yes,we do have Nancy and some others in the Dems party to thank for Social Security,and we have Bush to thank for the mess that Homeland Security is as well as nearly every other dept. of our government.Whether they`ll be held accountable or not remains to be seen.But I think we have to be thankful to Nancy for keeping us out of the impeachment game because we never would have won with the game rigged as it is.If we had a more reliable majority in both House and Senate, yeah,go for it,but we didn`t. I`m glad she didn`t fall into that trap. Thanks Nancy.
Until impeachment is on the table Pelosi deserves no credit! Neither do any of the other spineless democrats!
At the height of Bush's push to privatize Social Security, the then-congressman in my district, arch-Republican J. D. Hayworth had a poll on his web site, asking his voters which of four paths they wanted him to take to fix Social Security. Of course, this was a "push" poll, worded so most people would be steered to the "right" answer of privatization. Except that the voters weren't cooperating. Of the four bad choices offered in his poll, the choice that was winning was "do nothing". So the poll was removed from the site!
I would rather she devoted her time to setting up the impeachment table. There is plenty of time to take care of Social Security after Chimp leaves office and there's no threat of his veto crayon.
Mugsy @ 12:
After reading Mugsy`s blog I tend to agree with him that the Dems should continue tokeep the heat on the Bush cabel.I still favor putting impeachment back on the table,but it will be very tricky.This is why I`m not in politics.
Amato:
Biting and acerbic attack on "news"papers.
I like it!
Anyway, it amazes me, too, that Bush's by-the-nose-hair win was considered a "mandate" by the press, giving him the political "capital" to abolish Social Security. Perhaps the media that the press uses is indeed more important than the words printed on them -- to wrap fish, perhaps use as a source for cellulosic Ethanol, use for insulation materials...
Too bad we can't provide some utility out of the t.v. news broadcasts.
Ruthless People @ 17:
This is why I like Obama's plan. Restore the constitution and dismantle the Shrub junta before enacting progressive legislation.
I've always thought Pelosi to be quite shrewd. She is usually aware of what is possible in politics and, in this case, adopted the strategy of letting the republicans fashion their own noose. Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do.
Peter G @ 21:
I think that doing nothing is a terrible choice. Will they do nothing if bush decides to attack Iran? The American people want action taken against these traitorous thugs in the bush crime family!
So.... what is the credit for? SS is still broken. SS private accounts would probably not have had the option to invest in morgage backed securities and so wouldn't have imploded with bear stearns. Specifically, since Bear Stearns imploded because too many people made margin calls (asked for their money) on the fear that the bank was facing a liquidity crisis (didn't have any money), the private accounts would NEVER have been in that situation.
So. Congratulations for doing nothing and getting us closer to the point when SS is a REAL, looming crisis and the options to deal with it are more painful.
I'll give her credit for taking impeachment off the table like a spineless coward. Everything else she does falls under that black shadow.
Roger from Ohio @ 2:
I'm sure he's quite happy with his church. The problem is America, One sound bite and you all come unhinged, running for the exits, like a fire has broken out in the theatre. He knows he can't carry that into the GE. Don't blame him, blame the stupid voters.
Nancy Pelosi is not only a great Speaker of the House but an extremely wise strategist. As much as I would have loved to have Bush and Cheney impeached and jailed for crimes against humanity it was/is not the time. Besides, it was quite enjoyable watching Bush beat his chops on SS. He claimed all of this momentum from a (stolen) election. And he was looking like a damned fool with all those selected ass kissers. "Gee, Mr. President-why are you so wonderful?"
Impeach cheney and bush @ 26:
An "extremely wise strategist"? If I took my company's public approval ratings into the teens, I would not be considered an extremely wise strategist. I would be considered to be an extremely unemployed dufus.
I always figured the plan for privatizing social security, and everyone opening their own private investment accounts, was for the bankers, etc.. I now see they would have (most likely) sold you bundled sub-prime mortgage loans, as you retirement investment. If they went belly up, that would be fair market capitalism. I bet that was the plan all along. Then they'd blame you for poor investment choices, when you had nothing to live on in old age. Reads like a Republican wet dream, ...don't it?
Take HUGE profits up-front and socialize the losses.
Edwin Hussein @ 28:
I always figured that if I thought up other peoples' proposals in my make-believe world and then assumed that the make-believe was real, my arguments would work! So because you assume that republicans would do things that you hadn't even heard of 4 years ago, that means they would do it? I'm not saying they are angels. Any SS private accounts plan would have screwed over poorer citizens even if the republicans were perfect gentlemen (because of the fact that high income earners could not longs subsidize low income earners in retirement) and I'm sure that REAL republicans would have done worse, but come on now. Let's be real.
Republicans are not in this business for sheer malevolence. I'm sure that malevolence (or at least misanthropy) is part of it, but it isn't all of it. either way, assuming that republican motives are 100% foul means that little actually gets done to fix what is dreadfully wrong about social security. We will continue to push debt onto our children until it becomes a complete disaster. or we could compromise a bit and fix the system (FYI private accounts alone won't fix it, nor are they required in a fix, they just change a few problems with the system in the eyes of republicans).
Chris F. @ 22:
Oh I think we all agree that that would have been a nice option but it simply wasn't on the table. Given the slim majorities in both the house and particularly the senate it just wasn't realistic. Can you imagine Lieberman supporting an impeachment never mind any of the republicans? No, any action taken against any member of the Bush administration would have to take place in the future when it will no doubt be regarded as moot.
You are correct about all of this. She did a fine job on this issue.
But it doesn't make me feel any better about her being a war criminal. She was briefed in 2002 about the use of waterboarding, along with other members of congress, and she said nothing.
By all accounts SOMEONE in the room asked if we were going far enough in the harsh treatment of these prisoners. No one suggested we stop the illegal torture.
By my reckoning, that makes every one of them war criminals. I believe both American and International laws will back up that reckoning.
Adam Hyland @ 29:
I was completely aware of sub-prime mortgages 4 years ago. I just didn't have a name to put on them. Every time I turned on the computer, I could borrow $360,000 for only $875 a month, "just click". I did say, "I now see, and (most likely)". You really don't get how "this Republican majority" works, do you?
Edwin Hussein @ 32:
I know exactly how it works. I knew what the k-street project was back when it was just seen as a revolving door for lobbyists and Jack Abramhoff's name wasn't out there. I know that the 2002-2006 congresses were the most partisan in recent history and the 2006-2008 R. minority the most obstructionist in history (true story). I know that both legislative favors and government positions were held as quid pro quo for partisan support. I know all about the republicans.
But I'm suggesting that foaming, irrational contempt from SS private accounts is not founded in any evidence or reason that I can think of. Right now the SS trust fund is allowed to invest in one thing, government (federal) bonds. Presumably, were SS to be split into private accounts, new deposits would be allowed to invest in those same government bonds. I would also assume that like civilian government pension plans (take the DoD's Thrift Savings Plan or TSP as an example) would provide a model for other options. The choices would probably be something like: A. Government bonds. B. A mix of low risk investment grade bonds from state governments and corporations. C. A mix of equity indices and mutual funds or D. A mix of the three.
How nefarious does that sound? Where (aside from the prospect of Sub-prime backed bonds being granted AAA rating, which isn't really a partisian issue/decision) does the specter of sub-prime loans fit in?
Here are the real problems:
1. Deciding how the money gets invested would be a HUGE problem. this is a solvable problem, but the people in the SSA right now would have to come up with a pretty good way to solve it.
2. While we transition to private accounts, millions of people have been promised a set SS payment for their contributions, and that has to be honored. In the mean time (about 35 years), people turning 20 right now would have to "pay double" for current retirees and their own future (in a private account).
3. It stops redistribution from rich to poor. For democrats, this is a problem. For republicans it is a benefit. either way, it is not a death knell.
4. It doesn't ACTUALLY solve SS insolvency. We would have to solve that another way (by reducing payments, raising FICA or other solutions).
So please don't demagouge. It makes us (democrats) look bad.
I voted in 2006 for Pelosi and other dems to IMPEACH BUSH. Then she claimed we elected her to end the war.
Now its because she defeated the paper tiger of ending social security?
Screw Pelosi and the constantly shifting sands of the democratic party.
Some of you far-lefties are too hard on Pelosi and Reid. Let's vote in a large number of other liberals and then judge them. They are working with slim majorities (or Lieberman in the Senate) and that that "Reagan Democrat" bullshit, and are having a tough time as a result.
we are past impeachment! They need to face prosecution for crimes against humanity, if they can't be prosecuted for thousands of iraqis deaths then for 4000+ soldiers dead. Vote Cindy Sheehan!
Shag @ 35:
Wow- you make it sound as if they tried and failed. I'd have been happy if they'd done that.
Social Security can never go bankrupt as long as payroll taxes are being collected.
In the early 1980s, Reagan signed a bill that increased payroll tax collections, thus creating a surplus. In the next ten to fifteen years, this surplus will finally be tapped into, but it will take another thirty to forty years to use up this surplus, finally arriving at a point where payroll tax collections equal Social Security outlays. After this point is reached fifty some odd years from now, Social Security outlays may decrease relative to how much in payroll taxes is being collected, but Social Security will still be working as it was intended to work, just not at 100 percent efficiency.
So, contrast this faux crisis over Social Security and the Republicans ramping up the right-wing rhetoric, making a mountain out of a mole hill, demanding that something be done immediately about Social Security, even though Social Security is very, very healthy, and will remain so for decades to come, with only minor legislative tweaks maybe being necessary a decade or so from now...to the Republicans turning a blind eye to the real, actual, global warming crisis happening right now, in an attempt to make a mole hill out of a looming, global mountain, putting off any desperately-needed action right now.
Why are the Republicans, and conservatives around the world in general, so self-destructive and democracy-destructive? Is it that they have a secret death-wish for themselves and their own children, as well as all others?
Because if global warming continues unchecked at the increasing pace that scientists keep reporting, then the viability of Social Security will be the least of our concerns in the near future, as global warming generates a collapse of one civilized nation after another around the world, with the people who survive resorting to primal survival instincts, with highly successful cooperative programs like Social Security being replaced by a tribal mentally in which territories are established and maintained as people just try to survive until the next day.
Bleak outlook, isn't it? But just look at what the insane Bush invasion of Iraq has plunged Iraq into over the past five years. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had a form of our Social Security program in place, one in which all Iraqi families received a daily allotment of basic food staples. The Bush administration through the CPA under Bremer ordered this Iraqi Social Security program scrapped...but then they had to reinstate it because of all the turmoil caused by their heartless action. Of course, the reinstated Republican version incorporated their "privatization" scheme for all such programs, leading to widespread graft as for-profit middlemen sucked as much money as possible out before any basic food staples reached any Iraqi families, causing increased hunger and even starvation among Iraqi families.
In other words, this is the Republican "vision" for America and the rest of the world, an evil "vision." And the Republican's attempt to scrap our present Social Security System and replace it with their "privatized" version, along with the Republican's denying the accelerating seriousness of the global warming crisis, are part of this "grand vision" Republicans have for everyone. Grand vision? More like a nightmare dreamt up by some very heartless, warped and twisted individuals, who actually have a death-wish even as they claim that they are pro-life. I'm not fooled.
Roger from Ohio @ 2:
They always have prison reruns on during the weekends.
Shag @ 35:
I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm not a "far-lefty". Just someone who expects spine and representation out of the Dems.
Give the Dem senate 9 more Dems, and you'll still have a problem, with Reid in charge. Why? Because Reid has let the Repugs execute silent filibusters -- just the threat of filibustering is enough for Reid to require 60 votes (a 10 vote advantage) for the Dems to implement legislation. He has not actuallly required that they carry through the filibuster. In addition, many of the FISA amendments in the Senate version of the bill required 60 votes -- Reid agreed up front to give the Repugs a 10 vote advantage.
Reid has also honored any Repug hold on a bill.
On the other hand, he has required an actual filibuster out of Dems opposed to the FISA bill (Dodd). And he broke with tradition by NOT honoring Dem holds on bills.
The Oracle @ 38:
So...if it was Reagan who signed the surplus into effect, how come it is republicans who are responsible for the fear mongering? :) and what empirical evidence do you have to suggest that SS will be sovlent in 2050? the SS trust fund estimates? the CBO estimates? The OMB estimates?
Shag @ 35:
How is it that Mitch the "son of a bitch" McConnell can control the Senate more effectively as a minority member, than Reid can with the majority? And when the repukes had a 51-49 advantage, they had no trouble shoving their corporate fascist agenda down everyone's throat.
As far as impeachment goes, with 236-199 majority, the dems could easily send Bush and Cheney to the Senate for a well deserved "high crimes and misdemeanors" trial. Once the people started hearing what these slimy bastards have done to our constitution, country, its people and the military, I think there would be overwhelming support for them to be convicted. Plus, the MSM would be forced to cover (and report) all of the evil that the repukes practice against the american people on a daily basis. The republican party would have to change their name after the people got a stomach full of what the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate did to them. Hell, they could probably break into the 28%er base, and reduce them to the 19%ers. They might even be seen as heroes for defending the country against a group of psychopaths!
LMAO, Social Security is a thing of the past, kinda like Civil Rights. Remember those? LOL, Welcome to the NEw Regime!
JJ
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
Jason Tallismon @ 44:
Exactly, I find it fascinating that people thing that the Social Security program is a success when there is NO MONEY in the "trust fund". Social security checks are paid by current taxes (not from debits from a trust fund which is a fantasy).
For every $1 paid to you by SS, you pay at least $2: Once from your paycheck (that money gets used elsewhere) and then again from federal taxes. Did I mention that that the money you get from SS is TAXED (even though it was paid with after-tax money)?
Social security is a STUPID IDEA and people that think that allowing government to manage your retirement is a good idea are also stupid.
Chris F. @ 16:
Speaking of tables and spines, permit me to introduce her electoral opponent.
No, it's not Cindy Sheehan , it's Shirley Golub:
http://www.shirley08.com/
Those of you living in San Francisco can do the entire world a huge favor by voting for Shirley!
Otay @ 20:
I must agree with your assessment of the writing here. Nice work, Mr. Amato. You're in good form tonight!
chris @ 2:
You will once you reach 67.
They (the right wing) will never tire of trying to destroy Social Security. They despise it and all the New Deal did and stands for. They will lie and propagandize about it forever. Here is a recent example from a right wing propagandist named Victor Davis Hanson who is part of the conservative Hoover Institution think tank.
"The Social Security system is unsustainable. But the Baby Boomers who gave us Botox aren't about to up the retirement age and freeze their own cost-of-living hikes to allow the cash-strapped next generation a little help in paying for our out-of-control benefits."
The man is quite something to read, if you like conservative propaganda that is. Check out what he says about the Iraq war.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/29/EDIG10UR0O.D...
cheezebox @ 45:
Wow. You sure seem to know what you're talking about and seem so sure of yourself as to call anyone who thinks Social Security is a good idea is just STUPID. You couldn't possibly be the one thats STUPID?
I guess this economist just doesn't know what he is talking about
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/about-the-social-security-tr...
Lets not give her credit for anything.
Let's hold her accountable for taking impeachment "off the table", in the face of the most blatantly criminal administrations to have ever held the White House.
How's that sound?
[And how about we don't stray too far off topic? Just sayin'...Site Monitor]
Yeah, well, chalk up one good thing, which happened by her doing nothing. Yay.
She's complicit in torture. Another Little Eichmann.
Lets not and say we did.
Now explain to me why Obama puts out feelers to privatize Social Security! If the Dems are so dead set against it, how can their annointed leader undercut it?
AARP was the reason Bush did not get what he wanted on social security privatization.
Trying to give Pelosi credit on this is just.........a fantasy.
Impeach cheney and bush @ 27:
Her pledge was to cut off war funding. How is that working out?
Misogyny-hatred of women especially by men. Unfortunately, it rears it's ugly head again.
Besides, democrats are not like republicans. We do not go into lock step like they do.
Nancy Pelosi's leadership is akin to that of Corporal Klink from Hogan's Heroes.
She has been a bitter disappointment in my estimation. Just because every now and then she shows flashes of doing it right, there is no need in singing her praises.
All in all, like Harry Reid, she is a huge failure. We need new blood in the Dem party. None of the top leaders are fighting the cause with any effectiveness, if they were, we'd already be out of Iraq and busy repairing the damage BUSH has done around the world.
Give her credit?!?!? Sorry social security is dead anyways. We have $50 trillion in entitlements coming up with the baby boomers that is simply unsustainable.
I think maybe it's time people start looking at the GAO's documentation a little closer, Social Security is considered an off budget item. That is how our demander in chief gets away with lying about the state of our economy, sorry folks social security is an illusion. Both party's have treated our tax dollars with the same reverence an irresponsible teenager gives to their first credit card.
Fiscal Stewardship GAO-07-362SP
The federal government’s financial condition and fiscal outlook are worse than many may understand. Despite an increase in revenues in fiscal year 2006 of about $255 billion, the federal government reported that its costs exceeded its revenues by $450 billion (i.e., net operating cost) and that its cash outlays exceeded its cash receipts by $248 billion (i.e., unified budget deficit). Further, as of September 30, 2006, the U.S. government reported that it owed (i.e., liabilities) more than it owned (i.e., assets) by almost $9 trillion. In addition, the present value1 of the federal government’s major reported long-term “fiscal exposures”—liabilities (e.g., debt), contingencies (e.g., insurance), and social insurance and other commitments and promises (e.g., Social Security, Medicare)—rose from $20 trillion to about $50 trillion in the last 6 years.
http://www.gao.gov/fiscalstewardship.html
Ronnie RayGun tried to do the same thing Bush did and discovered that as popular as he allegedly was, Social Security was more popular. He tried his gambit in 1985 when the Repubs held the Senate. Thanks to a stand-up tough assed speaker Tip O'Niel, SS was saved and the Repubs lost the Senate in 1986. It truly is the Third Rail of Politics and I would love to see Obama "necklace" McCain with the issue in the upcoming campaign.
Chris F. @ 16:
Impeachment is a suckers game and she knows it. You however don't get it. This isn't 1974. In 1974 the Republicans in the Senate would have voted for conviction. Now not a chance. Thats the reality of our situation. The only solution is pulling these guys fingers off the levers of power one by one. Hopefully ten years from now the progressives will be powerful enough to send Bush to Hague to stand trial.
Stop being sheep.
Read this:
Storms on the Horizon
Richard W. Fisher
President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm
-=snip=-
Suppose we decided to tackle the issue solely on the spending side. It turns out that total discretionary spending in the federal budget, if maintained at its current share of GDP in perpetuity, is 3 percent larger than the entitlement shortfall. So all we would have to do to fully fund our nation’s entitlement programs would be to cut discretionary spending by 97 percent. But hold on. That discretionary spending includes defense and national security, education, the environment and many other areas, not just those controversial earmarks that make the evening news. All of them would have to be cut—almost eliminated, really—to tackle this problem through discretionary spending.
I hope that gives you some idea of just how large the problem is. And just to drive an important point home, these spending cuts or tax increases would need to be made immediately and maintained in perpetuity to solve the entitlement deficit problem. Discretionary spending would have to be reduced by 97 percent not only for our generation, but for our children and their children and every generation of children to come. And similarly on the taxation side, income tax revenue would have to rise 68 percent and remain that high forever. Remember, though, I said tax revenue, not tax rates. Who knows how much individual and corporate tax rates would have to change to increase revenue by 68 percent?
-=snip=-
Then the revelations from Scottie came out. In 1999, the GOP wasn’t worried about “the next election” when they impeached Bill Clinton. If anything, it helped them in November. Congress should not allow the Bushies to escape prosecution simply because they are affraid of affecting the November outcome. November shouldn’t factor into the equation at all.
---------
It did hurt republicans in 1998, as Newt Gingrich found out. The party out of power should have picked up seats in the 6th year of a president's term. In stead, Gingrich wound up resigning. President Bush's popularity is so low, that it may not matter, but the electorate is fickle. Democrats gained the majority in both houses in 2006, but opinion polls of congress are lower than the President. I am personally fed up with both political parties.
If malfeasance has occurred, the guilty should be brought to justice.
ZERO CREDIT FOR A BUSH/WAR CRIMES COLLABORATOR AND ROADBLOCK TO IMPEACHMENT.
SHE HAS VALIDATED AND COLLABORATED WITH THE WORST WAR CRIMES THIS NATION HAS EVER COMMITTED AND THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE TRAITORS AND MURDERERS EVER TO COME ANYWHERE NEAR THE WHITE HOUSE.
How Monica Lewinsky saved Social Security in 1998...
Read on, it's not satire...
http://www.counterpunch.org/blackburn10302004.html
The Oracle @ 39:
I'm so tired of seeing comments like this. THERE IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS!!! IT DOESN"T EXIST!!!
Yes, I'm shouting in all caps; I'm tired of having to repeat it. Every penny of "surplus" since the day Reagan and Greenspan came up with this wonderful idea was lumped into the general fund and spent. Any "surplus" is government treasury notes, which is just the government borrowing from itself. They are IOUs...fancy named IOUs, but IOUs nonetheless.
SS has been an off-the-books slush fund since the mid-80's.
chris @ 2:
And that says all we need to know about you captain clueless.
cheezebox @ 45:
Spoken like a true right wing STUPID MORON!
The average retire gets their full social security investment back and then some before they die. Its truly amazing to listen to you right wing zombies spout off as though you are the smartest people in the room, when you really are the biggest dumb-assed chumps on the planet! Why don't you give us some more of those right wing talking points from the aristocracy who loves fucking you in the ass, and then getting a huge chuckle as you do their bidding.
Here's a little tidbit for you lower end I.Q. types in the right wing ranks, from your very own U.S. government: 12% of the elderly live in poverty in the U.S., that number would be 48% if it were not for social security!
And if you got to retirement age and had no money, think those kind hearted GOPer's like Bush would be there to help you out, just like they did the folks in New Orleans and the current mortgage mess they made?
I'm so tired of saying this @ 66:
That doesn't mean its not sufficiently funded, it means the scumbag politicians are stealing it!
How does that make the program nonsustainable? Get the freakin' assholes in Washington to start taxing the rich and corporations, and they might be able to leave SS alone.
NoGWBpolicyleftinplace @ 69:
No- scumbag politicians aren't stealing it now...they've ALREADY stolen it.
Taxing corporations more isn't going to work because many will just have to increase the prices of all their products- and that only hurts the consumer. More taxation is always going to have a negative effect. Of course having tax cuts along with spending INCREASES isn't that much better either. Tax cuts ACROSS the board(rich or poor) along with decrease in spending is what should be done.
No reason to give any more money to a government that does nothing but spend it on military occupations and aid for foreign countries.
Scott @ 50:
Just so you know...a lot of educated people would say that Paul Krugman doesn't know what hes talking about. Not just neo-cons.
Why should I give credit to Pelosi? For helping destroy the country? For violating her oath of office? There is no logical argument to be made under the constitution for social security to exist, at all, in any form. This is aside from the fact that if you or I started a similar pyramid scheme, we'd be in prison for mail fraud. Not only is it unconstitutional, it's a felony, under federal law and of all 50 states. And it's one of the culprits in the tanking dollar. It's just another in a long line of party vote buying schemes that's killing the country from within.
Login or Register to post comments.