General discussion

Democrats on Social Security

Charlie Rangel

CAVUTO: What would you do? Tell me two things Charlie Rangel would do.

RANGEL: The first thing I would do is get my hands on some Republicans and sit down and saying, Charlie Rangel and the Democrats can't do this. Assuming I have a Democrat president, Democratic Senate, I would say, listen, we have got to do something about Social Security. We have a moral obligation to do it.

CAVUTO: But you're not. You haven't said that. Your party has just sat this issue out. So, this president comes on board, says Social Security is in trouble. I'm asking regular folks to pay for it. I'm asking the rich to pay for it. I'm asking people to make sacrifices. He has proposed ideas, and your party continually shoots him down.

RANGEL: I met with the president as the senior member of the committee that has jurisdiction. I met him with the White House last week.

He told me what a wonderful job he did with 60 cities in 60 days. I said, Mr. President, if that is so, the press hasn't been very kind to you.

CAVUTO: But don't your constituents have the right of choice? Don't they have the right to invest part of their money, if they so...

(CROSSTALK)

RANGEL: It is so clear that you don't understand this program....



Nancy Pelosi

Stephanopoulos: Why should American people trust the Democrats [on Social Security] if you don't have a specific plan?

Pelosi: The American people should trust the Democrats because we originated Social Security. This was a very entrepreneurial idea of the New Deal and Democrats will not allow the Republicans to turn this great deal for the American people into a raw deal for them by what they are proposing. They've never really supported Social Security, and the way to damage it, I'm trying to select my word carefully, is to destroy the universality of it. The genius of Social Security at the time was that everybody supported it in terms of the working families of America because they got a stream of income commensurate to what they put into the program.


Patrick Leahy

WALLACE: Senator, what's your idea to fix Social Security?

LEAHY: Well, you know, I'd like to see the president being willing to really engage in a bipartisan debate. He has said, basically: This is my plan, take it or leave it. I said there is a problem. Of course, when he ran for the House of Representatives years ago, he said Social Security is about to go bankrupt in a few years. It didn't.

Here he said: I've defined a problem, where is the Democrats' answer? That's sort of like saying: The war in Iraq (inaudible) a problem, we've got weapons of mass destruction there, so we've got to go in.

WALLACE: Senator, if I may...

LEAHY: No, but if I could answer the question...

WALLACE: Well, I'm not sure you have, though, because I'm asking you for what your idea is.

LEAHY: My idea is to be able to have the president put everything on the table. He's said that he won't negotiate on any of his points. You know, that's sort of a nonstarter.

He's said he wants privatization and very large cuts for the working middle class. I think that's the wrong way to start off. And I think, if you say that's non-negotiable, well, he's got a Republican majority in the House, Republican majority in the Senate. He should go to them, but he's going to find that a lot of those key Republicans are also very worried that he's set it up as being non-negotiable.

I look it at -- when you have a problem with Social Security, I look at what happens when you do it in a bipartisan way. Remember when Senator Moynihan and Senator Dole sat down and said, let's work together, in a bipartisan way, when there was a problem in Social Security, and they fixed it. So, I mean, there's going to be plenty -- Social Security will be there for my children, your children...

WALLACE: Senator...

LEAHY: Later on, there won't be. That is the only...

WALLACE: Senator, can I get another question in here, please?

LEAHY: Sure.

WALLACE: Forgive me, but I do think, in fairness, that you're mischaracterizing what the president is saying. He's never said that any of his ideas are non-negotiable.

(CROSSTALK)

LEAHY: Oh yes, he has.

WALLACE: If I may, sir, ask my question, he certainly has said that he favors the personal accounts. As for the progressive indexing, he's said that it's an idea, and he in fact invited everybody to come to the table.

The question I have is: Can Democrats get through this entire question of Social Security without offering a single constructive idea of your own?

LEAHY: Well, (inaudible) the president has just fleshed out in his -- and I was glad to see him do it, in his press conference, more of the details of his idea. Beyond just the privatization, he's talked about the middle-class wage-earner benefit cuts. I think, you know, those are controversial, but at least he's fleshing out his ideas.

What I would urge him to do -- and he has said things like the privatization is non-negotiable. I've been in meetings where he has said that.

The fact is, it has to all be negotiable, in the same way that Senator Bob Dole and Senator Pat Moynihan sat down and said: OK, everything's on the table, it's all negotiable, we found a solution.

Otherwise, what the president has is a case where he says, OK, to the Republicans, you have the majority in the House and the Senate, give me a package. But he's going to find that's going to be difficult even...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: But, Senator, I still haven't heard a single idea of yours as to how to fix Social Security.

LEAHY: My idea is that we sit down and have a true bipartisan negotiation. The president seems unwilling to do that.

WALLACE: OK.

LEAHY: I hope he would one.


OK ... I didn't see any IDEAS there, did you?

Evie Happy
Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: Democrats on Social Security
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Democrats on Social Security
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
I havent heard them comment on this idea, at all
- Collapse -
They have ...

... it is being billed by Krugman et.al. as a middle class benefit cut in disguise. Using "workers" not yet born to boot to massage the numbers to support this nonsense Sad

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
I think Bush had also floated a balloon

on raising the income limit for SS taxes, even though he was against it.

Anyway, bottom line is the Democrats are saying he has abosolutely no ideas about how to make changes.

- Collapse -
He was just playing with a balloon.

Nothing more complicated than that.

Wink

Dan

- Collapse -
Democrats are throwing darts at them

no matter what. Its a simple as that.

- Collapse -
Just b*tch and moan, don't offer any solutions

That's the plan from these weenie losers, far as I can tell. It's so embarrassing to watch that I pity them. SHEESH!

> OK ... I didn't see any IDEAS there, did you?

<MovieKidVoice> I see dumb people, lol. </MovieKidVoice>

These Michael Moorons don't give a damn about anything other than gaining power, and they'll sell this country and its people down the river in a heartbeat if that'll help them get it. The people be damned.

The good news is this: these clowns STILL don't know it, even though I've told them many times, but they all work for me! I'm yuk yuk yuking it up real good watching them step in it with both feet over and over and over! What a bunch of Michael Moorons, lol.

You just watch, now they'll crap up the forum with a slew of pantywaist "I hate Bush! I hate capitalism! I hate America!" posts AGAIN. And in so doing, the Bozos will yet again be working overtime for ME, Yuk Yuk Yuk!!!!!!

DE

- Collapse -
Well that is a few things they don't understand

but there are more. I hate the constant bickering. I look at Democrats as a bunch of whining brats with their hands out looking for 'programs' to benefit themselves. They jump up and down when a tax cut is proposed, almost like saying I'd like a career and a good paying job and a tax cut too. So stupid. Look at all the laws and programs that rich pay for that never see a dime back.

At my meager salary, I never see any welfare, phony disability, food stamps, wix programs, free cheese, unemployment compensation, food stamps, Medicare-Medicaid before age 65, and on and on. Many Democrats do, and I'd guess most all of the people collecting these benefits are Democrats, not one is whining that Republicans are paying for this too.

The biggest dis-service the whining does (and you know who you are) is build a wall between us. Instead of being able to say, "I vote for the best man, not the party" like my parents did, we now have a highly polarized (wall) between us. Whining and false attacks is the impenetrable mortar.

- Collapse -
The only ones I see whining are the rightist trolls

Anyone that doesn't follow the party line and agree with everything Bush does is unAmerican.

I was reading about what the Bush plan would allow retirees to get. The poor would get the same amount if nothing were done (not more) and the amount would decrease as the amount the person should get goes up.

So it would not increase the amount that low-wage earners would get. Bush left the impression that the poor's income from SS would increase but it wouldn't.

Even Dragon's link states The Pozen proposal would use price indexing to determine the benefits for ?maximum earners,? people who currently make $90,000 or more annually. Lower-earners ? specifically the bottom 30 percent of earners, or those who make less than about $20,000 currently ? would continue to have their benefits calculated under the current formula. (Pozen describes the cutoffs as $25,000 but that is because he is using the expected threshold level in 2012 and expressing it in 2012 dollars.) Anyone whose annual earnings over his or her career averaged between $20,000 and $90,000 would get a benefit somewhere between the currently promised benefit and the benefit that would be provided under price indexing. For example, a worker making about $35,000 annually would be subject to about half of the price-indexing benefit reduction, while a worker making about $55,000 annually would be subject to more than 80 percent of the price-indexing benefit reduction.

And I have never said that I hate Bush or capitalism or America. You seem to be the one continually calling names.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
I would like to see the tiniest shred of evidence...

for this charge which you have made more than once:

"Anyone that doesn't follow the party line and agree with everything Bush does is unAmerican."

Who ever said that? I believe it is total BS.

- Collapse -
That's a Moore-on type myth that won't go away

because some people keep parroting it

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Just look at the post I'm replying to
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Doesn't support your charge.
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) There are none so blind as he who will not see
- Collapse -
And none as delusionary as those that see ...

... what is not there!

- Collapse -
Why?

I don't necessarily agree with the tone of DE's post but, there is nothihg in it to support your statement:

Anyone that doesn't follow the party line and agree with everything Bush does is unAmerican.

And I note that you have claimed this in various ways other times too. It is a fairly common complaint among anti-Bush people that I have yet to see authenticated. I believe it is BS. Can you prove me wrong?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I think you're absolutely correct Diana. Go get em.
- Collapse -
Josh gave you a list in the now locked

Cuban cigar thread.

Dan

- Collapse -
(NT) I replied and addressed his list in that same topic.
- Collapse -
And there was .......

absolutely no mention of treason in those posts! And he claimed that I was part of calling people anti American! Do a search, NO place have I ever called anyone anti American! More BS Dan!

- Collapse -
Glenda, if you did not

swear in your posts they would not sound so shrill.

Dan

- Collapse -
LOL! Another BS post from Dan!

I call them as I see them!

- Collapse -
Maybe it's just me.

My parents taught me swearing was a bad thing. It seems they were unusual in that regard.

Too bad.

Dan

- Collapse -
Your parents also taught you that...

...prolife was the way to go.

- Collapse -
Wrong, as usual, Jack.

My parents were big believers in individual liberties and of government staying out of an individual's private decisions.

Dan

- Collapse -
Well, aren't you glad they opt for pro life when...

...you came along?

- Collapse -
Go climb a tree, Jack.

Save your baiting for someone else.

Dan

- Collapse -
Here are two actually using the phrase...
- Collapse -
Kerry is an SE member now?

And Ed was not referring to Kerry's opposition to Bush making him un-American.

Try again.

- Collapse -
Kerry's actions spoken about were UNAMERICAN...

and I will (have) repeat the statement here.

I have also stated this fact about draft dodgers and the actions of draft dodgers are indeed UNAMERICAN.

Having said that I must note that if that is the best you can do you should give up.

You STILL have not found ANYBODY in this forum who has stated that "anyone who doesn't follow the party line and agree with everything Bush does is unAmerican." Why can't you find such a statement? Quite simply because NO ONE has made any such general comment although you should find several more posts where the word unAmerican was used to describe the actions or activities of specific individuals or even groups such as DRAFT DODGERS.

Kerry became the mouthpiece of North Vietnam and that was indeed UNAMERICAN. Fonda played kisseyface with North Vietnamese and contributed to the mistreatment of prisoners of war and that was UNAMERICAN.

Care to try again and actually locate ANY post that actually supports your, Josh's and Diana's claim of anyone in this forum branding everyone who is unsupportive of policy unAmerican? Many are simply idiots following their ultra liberal leadership like brain dead sheep.

- Collapse -
That's ONE

The seconds I discount as it refers ot Kerry's in-American activities. They may well have been. There ARE such things you know.

CNET Forums