Social Security Poses Hurdles for President (needs 04 election mandate)

[papau]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/politics/campaign/18social.html
Social Security Poses Hurdles for President
By ROBIN TONER and DAVID ROSENBAUM

Published: September 18, 2004


WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 - President Bush's vision of an "ownership society" is built, as much as anything else, on a sweeping promise: that he will transform Social Security so younger workers can divert some of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts.

At a rally in Pennsylvania last week, Mr. Bush declared, as he does at almost every campaign stop nowadays, that "younger workers ought to be able to take some of their taxes and set up a personal savings account, an account that they can call their own, an account that the government cannot take away and an account that they can pass on from one generation to the next."<snip>

But behind the sweeping promise are some harsh political realities that could loom large in this fall's debates and the final clashes of the presidential campaign. Mr. Bush has never proposed a specific plan to reach his goal - and, critics say, for good reasons. With the budget already running large annual deficits, recent estimates of typical plans for private accounts show they would cost as much as $2 trillion over the first 10 years. <snip>

"The president is adamant that we do it in a bipartisan way,'' Mr. Adams said. "And it's such a big issue that it almost requires an election to give the president the political capital and the ability to frame the issue so that he can get his conceptual solution through a divided Congress.''<snip>

[papau]

1. Stops rich sharing tax, stops threat of taxing all income, kills all

future social programs as $2 trillion is borrowed to "save" Social Security" and solve a Social Security problem that notes not exist until 2052 if then, but where the borrowing will caused the future Federal Budget to pay out little more than Defence and interest on the debt.

Great Idea -

and where is our media?

I do love our not right wing GOP controlled media - they just act that way.

[Carla in Ca]

7. Just an observation...

President Clinton is remembered, and rightly so, for keeping this country in pretty good shape during his term even though he worked with a Repub Congress.
Look at the state we are in now with all 3 branches of government in repub control.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. The reality is that younger workers have to pay for the

older ones. The promise is "broken" in chimp's plan. I don't know if simply doesn't understand how SS works, I am beginning to wonder.

[rfkrocks]

3. Notice the "bipartisan" hemlock language

I hope our Congressional Dems don't fall for this horsecrap-if the GOP wants to destroy Social Security-the blood should be on the heads of the GOP-they know shrub's possible second term will be a financial disaster for the GOP and country-they are looking for cover in sending out feelers to spineless Dems-if shrub wins (God Preserve us) not one member of the Democratic party better support this vile proposal

[bain_sidhe]

4. Mandate, smandate. When has bu**sh** ever cared

about a mandate? As long has he gets "in," by fair means or foul, that's good enough for him.

[n2mark]

5. Social Security

So what is new? I always felt the money I put into SS helped those who retired. The workers now are doing the same for their retirement--.

To let you all know, I don't get very much from SSN, less then my pension. It does help, but after all the time I paid into this -- Someone is ripping off this agency big time.

This money is probably being confiscated to help Iraq.

[Amigust]

6. Only a Diebold majority is enough to call it a "mandate"

http://amigust.blogspot.com

[struggle4progress]

8. kick for destroying the social security system

:kick: