Frustrated Republicans lash out at Democrats, AARP
WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) - Republican Congressional leaders, frustrated that President George W. Bush's plan to restructure Social Security is failing to win public support, lashed out on Wednesday at Democrats and the country's largest retiree organization, who oppose it....
"It is incredibly irresponsible to try to convince the American people that there is no problem. It is incredibly irresponsible for the AARP to be against a solution that hasn't even been written yet," DeLay said after a closed-door meeting with Republican members of the House of Representatives....
White House spokesman Scott McClellan criticized "naysayers" who are predicting the failure of Bush's plan.
"The president believes it's important to act this year to strengthen Social Security, because it's a problem that only gets worse with time, and it will only cost more to try and solve it if we wait," he said....
Democrats struck back at Republican criticisms saying Bush was trying to create a crisis in Social Security when the program will be able to pay full retirement benefits for decades to come.
"We're not going to be sucked into the president's plan to have us have meetings with him on something that is not an emergency," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters.
He said Bush should be addressing more pressing problems like health care, education and huge budget deficits.
Reid also criticized Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan who reiterated his support for individual accounts on Wednesday and told a House panel that lawmakers should act sooner rather than later.
"What I wish Greenspan would tell the Republicans is what he told us when (Bill) Clinton was president, you've got to do something about the deficit. We did," Reid said....
Democrats, feeling no pressure from the public, say they they will not enter into negotiations with Republicans until private investment accounts are taken off the table.
They argue that Bush's proposal would accelerate Social Security's financial problems and force deeper cuts in promised benefits than otherwise would be necessary to shore up the system's finances....
The AARP believes that diverting payroll taxes away from Social Security will undermine the program and that any problems in the system can be solved by less radical means.
~~~ snip ~~~
Deaf Power
2005-03-02 16:44:48 EST
On 2 Mar 2005 13:38:48 -0800, "Williams" <c-williams3@lycos.com> wrote:
>Frustrated Republicans lash out at Democrats, AARP > >WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) - Republican Congressional leaders, >frustrated that President George W. Bush's plan to restructure Social >Security is failing to win public support, lashed out on Wednesday at >Democrats and the country's largest retiree organization, who oppose >it.... > >"It is incredibly irresponsible to try to convince the American people >that there is no problem. It is incredibly irresponsible for the AARP >to be against a solution that hasn't even been written yet," DeLay said >after a closed-door meeting with Republican members of the House of >Representatives.... > >White House spokesman Scott McClellan criticized "naysayers" who are >predicting the failure of Bush's plan.
What a bunch of dopes these republicans are.
>"The president believes it's important to act this year to strengthen >Social Security, because it's a problem that only gets worse with time, >and it will only cost more to try and solve it if we wait," he said.... > >Democrats struck back at Republican criticisms saying Bush was trying >to create a crisis in Social Security when the program will be able to >pay full retirement benefits for decades to come.
Very true. Go, go, democrats!
Today's Republican party: "Hey hey. Ho ho. Social Security has got to go".
>"We're not going to be sucked into the president's plan to have us have >meetings with him on something that is not an emergency," Senate >Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters. > >He said Bush should be addressing more pressing problems like health >care, education and huge budget deficits. > >Reid also criticized Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan who >reiterated his support for individual accounts on Wednesday and told a >House panel that lawmakers should act sooner rather than later. > >"What I wish Greenspan would tell the Republicans is what he told us >when (Bill) Clinton was president, you've got to do something about the >deficit. We did," Reid said.... > >Democrats, feeling no pressure from the public, say they they will not >enter into negotiations with Republicans until private investment >accounts are taken off the table. > >They argue that Bush's proposal would accelerate Social Security's >financial problems and force deeper cuts in promised benefits than >otherwise would be necessary to shore up the system's finances.... > >The AARP believes that diverting payroll taxes away from Social >Security will undermine the program and that any problems in the system >can be solved by less radical means. > >~~~ snip ~~~
HMFIC-1369
2005-03-02 18:34:43 EST
I'm all for getting rid of Social Security as long as they get rid of Corporate write-offs!
"Williams" <c-williams3@lycos.com> wrote in message news:1109799528.417710.21770@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Frustrated Republicans lash out at Democrats, AARP > > WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) - Republican Congressional leaders, > frustrated that President George W. Bush's plan to restructure Social > Security is failing to win public support, lashed out on Wednesday at > Democrats and the country's largest retiree organization, who oppose > it.... > > "It is incredibly irresponsible to try to convince the American people > that there is no problem. It is incredibly irresponsible for the AARP > to be against a solution that hasn't even been written yet," DeLay said > after a closed-door meeting with Republican members of the House of > Representatives.... > > White House spokesman Scott McClellan criticized "naysayers" who are > predicting the failure of Bush's plan. > > "The president believes it's important to act this year to strengthen > Social Security, because it's a problem that only gets worse with time, > and it will only cost more to try and solve it if we wait," he said.... > > Democrats struck back at Republican criticisms saying Bush was trying > to create a crisis in Social Security when the program will be able to > pay full retirement benefits for decades to come. > > "We're not going to be sucked into the president's plan to have us have > meetings with him on something that is not an emergency," Senate > Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters. > > He said Bush should be addressing more pressing problems like health > care, education and huge budget deficits. > > Reid also criticized Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan who > reiterated his support for individual accounts on Wednesday and told a > House panel that lawmakers should act sooner rather than later. > > "What I wish Greenspan would tell the Republicans is what he told us > when (Bill) Clinton was president, you've got to do something about the > deficit. We did," Reid said.... > > Democrats, feeling no pressure from the public, say they they will not > enter into negotiations with Republicans until private investment > accounts are taken off the table. > > They argue that Bush's proposal would accelerate Social Security's > financial problems and force deeper cuts in promised benefits than > otherwise would be necessary to shore up the system's finances.... > > The AARP believes that diverting payroll taxes away from Social > Security will undermine the program and that any problems in the system > can be solved by less radical means. > > ~~~ snip ~~~ >
Jaberwokie
2005-03-02 20:10:56 EST
The problem with the proponents of the President's flawed Social Security scam is that the average American saw the numbers didn't work. A whole lot of Republicans didn't like it either. Republicans should not be viewed as blind followers of the Big Buisness above all else group that has claimed the Party as their home. Bush has done some good things but the Credit Card Companies have written much of his instructions.
Williams wrote:
> Frustrated Republicans lash out at Democrats, AARP > > WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) - Republican Congressional leaders, > frustrated that President George W. Bush's plan to restructure Social > Security is failing to win public support, lashed out on Wednesday at > Democrats and the country's largest retiree organization, who oppose > it.... > > "It is incredibly irresponsible to try to convince the American people > that there is no problem. It is incredibly irresponsible for the AARP > to be against a solution that hasn't even been written yet," DeLay said > after a closed-door meeting with Republican members of the House of > Representatives.... > > White House spokesman Scott McClellan criticized "naysayers" who are > predicting the failure of Bush's plan. > > "The president believes it's important to act this year to strengthen > Social Security, because it's a problem that only gets worse with time, > and it will only cost more to try and solve it if we wait," he said.... > > Democrats struck back at Republican criticisms saying Bush was trying > to create a crisis in Social Security when the program will be able to > pay full retirement benefits for decades to come. > > "We're not going to be sucked into the president's plan to have us have > meetings with him on something that is not an emergency," Senate > Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters. > > He said Bush should be addressing more pressing problems like health > care, education and huge budget deficits. > > Reid also criticized Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan who > reiterated his support for individual accounts on Wednesday and told a > House panel that lawmakers should act sooner rather than later. > > "What I wish Greenspan would tell the Republicans is what he told us > when (Bill) Clinton was president, you've got to do something about the > deficit. We did," Reid said.... > > Democrats, feeling no pressure from the public, say they they will not > enter into negotiations with Republicans until private investment > accounts are taken off the table. > > They argue that Bush's proposal would accelerate Social Security's > financial problems and force deeper cuts in promised benefits than > otherwise would be necessary to shore up the system's finances.... > > The AARP believes that diverting payroll taxes away from Social > Security will undermine the program and that any problems in the system > can be solved by less radical means. > > ~~~ snip ~~~ >
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-03 12:55:17 EST
"HMFIC-1369" <M-14@Vet.com> wrote in message news:n4sVd.74137$g16.47666@trndny08... > I'm all for getting rid of Social Security as > long as they get rid of > Corporate write-offs! > >
Once again, taxing corporations is a tax on those who buy the products and services of the corporation. Unlike Joe Sixpack, who has no one else to turn to when they are taxed, a corporation when taxed simply increases the price of the products or services they sell. Which means that you and I are actually paying that tax.
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-03 12:56:49 EST
"Jaberwokie" <Jaberwokie@Global.net> wrote in message news:rrtVd.5422$w85.1046@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > The problem with the proponents of the > President's flawed Social Security scam is that > the average American saw the numbers didn't > work. A whole lot of Republicans didn't like it > either. Republicans should not be viewed as > blind followers of the Big Buisness above all > else group that has claimed the Party as their > home. Bush has done some good things but the > Credit Card Companies have written much of his > instructions. > > Williams wrote: > I will make this real simple for you to understand. If you only have social security as your source of income when you retire, depending on where you live, you will be around the official government standard for living in poverty.
Jaberwokie
2005-03-03 17:07:09 EST
That's understood but the President's plan would not improive the overall net income of the Social Security Alternative participant. It would just move the money from Government to Wall Street. When the participant dies anything in the"annuity" would go to the Government too. There is no net gain in the plan for anyone except the Financial Instiutions and Wall Street.
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> "Jaberwokie" <Jaberwokie@Global.net> wrote in > message > news:rrtVd.5422$w85.1046@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > >>The problem with the proponents of the >>President's flawed Social Security scam is that >>the average American saw the numbers didn't >>work. A whole lot of Republicans didn't like it >>either. Republicans should not be viewed as >>blind followers of the Big Buisness above all >>else group that has claimed the Party as their >>home. Bush has done some good things but the >>Credit Card Companies have written much of his >>instructions. >> >>Williams wrote: >> > > I will make this real simple for you to > understand. If you only have social security as > your source of income when you retire, depending > on where you live, you will be around the official > government standard for living in poverty. > >
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-03 20:02:29 EST
"Jaberwokie" <Jaberwokie@Global.net> wrote in message news:mSLVd.872$%Y4.679@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > That's understood but the President's plan would > not improive the overall net income of the > Social Security Alternative participant. It > would just move the money from Government to > Wall Street. When the participant dies anything > in the"annuity" would go to the Government too. > There is no net gain in the plan for anyone > except the Financial Instiutions and Wall > Street. > Even if it does not accomplish what they want think can be accomplished, it will still be your money, that the government cannot take away from you. Whereas, with Social Security, if they wanted to, which of course they don't seem to have the guts to do, that is assuming of course that they cannot figure out a way out of the box they are creating for themselves, what the government gives, the government can take away. As for the annuity, as I understand one of the proposals, that can only if they are old enought to start receiving the retirement benefits. And only if the final plan forces you to convert the money into an annuity. If you die before you reach the eligible age for receiving the retirement benefit, your heirs are the beneficiaries.
Besides, do you have any idea what your social security retirement benefit will be when you retire? Let me tell you that according to government statistics, those who have only social security to live on, are around the official poverty rate of Americans. And depending on where you live, and what your benefits are, you may actually be below the poverty rate.