|
Rove pulls out Smear Boat Consultants to Battle AARP on SS
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
This should tell you how bad the Bush campaign to Social Security is going - Rove is pulling out the Smear Boaters to attack the AARP:
| quote: | Taking its cues from the success of last year's Swift boat veterans' campaign in the presidential race, a conservative lobbying organization has hired some of the same consultants to orchestrate attacks on one of President Bush's toughest opponents in the battle to overhaul Social Security.
The lobbying group, USA Next, which has poured millions of dollars into Republican policy battles, now says it plans to spend as much as $10 million on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the powerhouse lobby opposing the private investment accounts at the center of Mr. Bush's plan.
http://nytimes.com/2005/02/21/polit...artner=homepage |
And here's a taste of what's to come from these smear artists:
Ain't that great? The AARP is against the troops, but luuuuuuves gay marriage! And that has to do with Social Security how?
If you think Bush won't go to any lengths to get his agenda, damn the consequences, damn the truth, damn the reality, ing think again.
How ing ridiculous. |
|
|
| CyberneticAngel |
| And if you actually think that Social Security doesn't need privatizing you are insane |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by CyberneticAngel
And if you actually think that Social Security doesn't need privatizing you are insane |
Explain. Be specific. Bush has already stated right out that SS privatization would do NOTHING for the future solvency of SS. If you know something he doesn't, you'd better let him know.
You might also want to explain how the AARP hates our military and loves gays, while you're at it. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by CyberneticAngel
And if you actually think that Social Security doesn't need privatizing you are insane |
Bush's plan does nothing to address the solvency issue and the rate of return will not be as great as claimed. There were a ton of problems with privatization in England under Thatcher. The problem here is politicians raiding the trust fund.
EDIT: Sorry Opus, you posted as I was typing sort of the same thing.
As far as the advertising campaign, it's amazing how some people have no shame and claim they're working in the interests of democracy. |
|
|
| CyberneticAngel |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Bush's plan does nothing to address the solvency issue and the rate of return will not be as great as claimed. There were a ton of problems with privatization in England under Thatcher. The problem here is politicians raiding the trust fund. |
The problem here is that there IS no trust fund, for years Congress has treated the SS revenue the same as other revenues allowing it to be assigned to the general budget. With the beginning of the babyboomer retirements the SS budget is being streached to the point of breaking. Obviously you can ask "but what is privatizing SS going to do about this problem?" Nothing, the only cure available will be to pay these expenses with an increasing portion of the general revenue.
The point of all of this is that to prevent this situation from happening again (or compounding the current problem) a new "something" needs to be set up that will seperate the income coming in for future SS payouts (read yours and mine) from the general budget. I believe that since the private sector has a MUCH better record for fiscal responsibility than the government it makes a lot more sense to allow at least a portion of a persons retirement to be invested there. I mean the fiscal abuses of the government make Enron and Global Crossing look like pretenders. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by CyberneticAngel
The problem here is that there IS no trust fund, for years Congress has treated the SS revenue the same as other revenues allowing it to be assigned to the general budget. With the beginning of the babyboomer retirements the SS budget is being streached to the point of breaking. Obviously you can ask "but what is privatizing SS going to do about this problem?" Nothing, the only cure available will be to pay these expenses with an increasing portion of the general revenue.
The point of all of this is that to prevent this situation from happening again (or compounding the current problem) a new "something" needs to be set up that will seperate the income coming in for future SS payouts (read yours and mine) from the general budget. I believe that since the private sector has a MUCH better record for fiscal responsibility than the government it makes a lot more sense to allow at least a portion of a persons retirement to be invested there. I mean the fiscal abuses of the government make Enron and Global Crossing look like pretenders. |
There is a trust fund with money in it, that's how Bush was working his crisis angle before, that the system will go broke and then only later will it nolonger be able to pay out full funds. We need to pay back what's been taken out and the trustees need full control over the money, with no access given to the legislature. Once the funds would be refunded to SS, the generational issue would not be a problem anymore. If Bush funded "transition costs" which is part of his plan, the problem would essentially be resolved without the private acounts problem, provided congress is shut out of access in the future.
I think retirement itself already is privatized for the most part, like most people, I have a 401K plan and an IRA to save for the future. Social security was built as a program to elevate many of the elderly over the poverty line, it has never been meant to be a complete retirement fund. I don't think that privatizing the public component in addition to the existing private component of most of the elderly's income makes sense. The government may carry a tremendous debt, but SS checks have never failed to arrive, the private sector will not ensure that and if you live longer than expected, you'll be out of that steady income when your invested funds run out, not to mention the benefit cuts Bush's plan already includes that he fails to discuss. |
|
|
| CyberneticAngel |
I agree that people should definetly be retireing on their own savings. To rely on the government to manage your retirement is capricious and silly.
When people talk about the system becoming "broke" what they mean is that the revenues being paid out will pass the money being brought in. This should happen about 2018. From that point on the balance will continue to grow until the AARP projects that there could be as many as one retiree to every two workers. The government has been saving part or all (depending on the year) of the extra money in the form of tax-exempt government bonds since about 1997. (Which I would like to point out basically means that the govenment bought down its debt when it aquired them and will need to rebrow to turn into money) Experts project (assuming all SS income is being saved) that SS will be funded until 2042
Ten Myths about SS
at which point there will be about a 30% immediate cut in payouts. While it is true that a positive US / world economy would improve these time estimates, advancements in health care that raise the average lifespan would negatively affect them.
We can argue all we want about whether the system is broken or not, but there is one thing that I havn't heard, and that is just what is so bad about allowing people to privatize part (or all) of there SS retirement? The government consistantly has shown a low rate of return, is anyone saying that they seriously think that the private market will underperform government bond? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by CyberneticAngel
The problem here is that there IS no trust fund, for years Congress has treated the SS revenue the same as other revenues allowing it to be assigned to the general budget. With the beginning of the babyboomer retirements the SS budget is being streached to the point of breaking. |
Hmmm, I guess then there is no "surplus" that even Bush admits is currently being created in this mythical Trust Fund then, huh?
Congress has treated the SS Trust Fund in a similar manner as other revenue, but Congress has also put in Treasury Bonds to replace the money being spent. Now if you're going to tell me that those bonds are nothing but "worthless IOUs", I really hope you don't tell other countries around the world the same thing. That would certainly spark an international economic crisis if, indeed, those Bonds were worthless, or that we intend to default on them. And under the 14th Amendment, we are obligated to pay back those "worthless IOUs" in full regardless.
Besides, you do realize that Bush has a lot of his own personal investment in those "worthless" Treasury Bonds, don't you? Why would his own personal bonds be good, but SS bonds somehow be bad?
| quote: | | Obviously you can ask "but what is privatizing SS going to do about this problem?" Nothing, the only cure available will be to pay these expenses with an increasing portion of the general revenue. |
Like repeal Bush's tax cuts to the top 1%?
*gasp*
How drastic.
| quote: | | The point of all of this is that to prevent this situation from happening again (or compounding the current problem) a new "something" needs to be set up that will seperate the income coming in for future SS payouts (read yours and mine) from the general budget. |
Well you tell your Republican President to repeal those ridiculous tax cuts to the affluent, close some corporate tax loopholes, as well as tell your GOP Congress to stop spending so much damn money, and perhaps they'll be a bit more budget revenue. Not too difficult really.
| quote: | | I believe that since the private sector has a MUCH better record for fiscal responsibility than the government it makes a lot more sense to allow at least a portion of a persons retirement to be invested there. |
Like Enron?
Really now, suppose there's an economic downturn, which historically there have been a good number of them. What will you tell those folks who went to privatization who are trying to draw money out during those downturns? Tough ? Too bad?
The problem with you is that SS has been the best government program, and the best insurance safety net and anti-poverty program on record.
| quote: | | I mean the fiscal abuses of the government make Enron and Global Crossing look like pretenders. |
I'm not too hip on government spending either, but the projections for SS by both the SS Trustees and the CBO project surpluses 'till 2018 and 2020 respectively, and project 100% payout in those benefits to 2042 and 2052 respectively. These dates continue to get pushed back primarily because these "doomsday" forecasts are created by a very conservative (or dismal) estimate on the economy. At present this issue is hardly a crisis, especially in comparison to the 75 year projected costs of Bush's tax cuts and Prescription drug plan.
The problem is Bush's budget and his failure to balance it responsibly. Let's address the real priorities first before we think of tinkering with something that's 45-50 years down the road or further. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| MisterOpus1 why dont you just start a blog |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
MisterOpus1 why dont you just start a blog |
HAHAHA! I love nothing more than to comehome from the bar and see Opus did all his homework for us while I was gone. He should have a blog, he does way more of his research than Atrios ever has! Opus for president! |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Bush's plan does nothing to address the solvency issue and the rate of return will not be as great as claimed. There were a ton of problems with privatization in England under Thatcher. The problem here is politicians raiding the trust fund. |
Actually the problem is demographics.
The added bonus is political raiding;)
And well interest below GDP growth doesn't help the problem either... |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Actually the problem is demographics.
The added bonus is political raiding;)
And well interest below GDP growth doesn't help the problem either... |
That's why we shore it up and have each generation paying in for itself. That was actually the initial idea of the plan after the first generation collecting left it, who did not pay into the system because they were already retired. Brit Hume erroneously spun this just recently. Some adjustments need to be made to account for life expectancy increases, but I doubt we're going to be prolonging life expectancy rates by another 20 years in our lifetimes, so the gap would not grow as it once did. Also what on earth would be done with the people who are collecting social security much earlier than the retirement age under Bush's plan? The interest rate earned from SS $$$ is well above the inflation rate, the administration has greatly misrepresented this fact. Another reason I think the long term costs would be even greater under Bush's plan than social security as it is would be that many more people would find themselves on public aid due to lost SS benefits and if their lifespan outlasts their investment earnings. This would put them completely on government funds at greater cost to taxpayers. |
|
|
|
|
