Friday, February 18, 2005

Damnit Joe

I think his Joementum is going the wrong way. Via Josh Marshall, Congress Daily has this:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., is undecided about the concept of using payroll taxes to fund private Social Security accounts, bringing to three the known number of Senate Democrats who have yet to publicly rule out the idea. President Bush has made the accounts the centerpiece of his domestic agenda. But other than Rep. Allen Boyd of Florida, no congressional Democrats have formally signed on. While Lieberman has concerns about the idea, he is continuing to study it while hoping for more details on Social Security from the president, a Lieberman aide said today. "He's still in a listening and learning stage and is keeping an open mind, but he does have concerns about private accounts as carve-outs that would potentially undermine the guaranteed minimum benefit and worsen our fiscal health and debt load," a Lieberman aide said today.
After his appearance on the Daily Show on Inaguaration Day I was pleased to see that he he wanted to protect Social Security. But now he's back in the Fainthearted Faction and he's listening to the bullshit coming out of the White House. Joe, don't turn to the dark side on us. We've been down this road a thousand times and the GOP will only break your heart. You won't get what you want from them; no good can come of it. Come home, Joe, come home.

7 Comments:

At 2:46 PM, Blogger MajorDad said...

Nate...

"using payroll taxes"

That is your money...and my money. Most people don't really think about the witholding as being part of their salary, but you really should.

I believe Mr. Lieberman and others are simply considering alternatives rather than turning a blind eye to a problem.

While some in Congress argue there is no problem, I'll look to the former savior of the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton and his estimation of the situation late last decade. I know that he and I certainly don't share much common ground, but I've believed for quite some time that there's a fundamental problem with the Social Security system.

If the Republican Party found the money, time, and resources to provide each American family a new home (1 bedroom per child and 1 per "couple) and the keys to a hybrid SUV to every American citizen of driving age...the Democratic Party would complain about the color of the tiles in the bathrooms and the interior of the hybrid SUVs.

I think that it's time to put political affiliations aside and start solving problems that are good for the country...not just the RNC or DNC.

Capische?

See you on the high ground!

MajorDad1984

 
At 9:15 PM, Blogger Nate said...

The problem with your thesis is that the Republicans would do everything they could to make sure that the government didn't do those things and keeps the government as far away from solving people's problems as possible. That's what movement conservatism was all about. That's what Reagan meant in his inaugural address when he said "Government is not the solution to people's problems. Government is the problem."

My political affiliations, and those of a great many people I imagine, aren't because of some crazed cult-like influence or marketing. It's because Democrats believe what I believe, therefore, I'm a Democrat. And I want to do all I can to help my party because I think that means we all win.

 
At 10:36 AM, Blogger MajorDad said...

The problem with your thesis is that the Republicans would do everything they could to make sure that the government didn't do those things and keeps the government as far away from solving people's problems as possible. That's what movement conservatism was all about. That's what Reagan meant in his inaugural address when he said "Government is not the solution to people's problems. Government is the problem."Nate...while "government" has gotten bigger under the recent Republican administration, I think that you can safely say that it is pretty much continued fallout from the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

If you think that the Republicans are all for increased and larger government, take a look at this year's budget proposition. Remember all the "howling" about "cuts?" If the Republicans were some hot on increasing government, why would they have decreased the spending increases (politically correctly defined as CUTS)?

I'm all for you having your belief system...but while it would be great if mankind could actually grip hands and sing "Kumbayah" together, it's not about to happen anytime soon. The quest for wealth, power, and influence blur the vision of far too many people these days (and historically if you take the chance to study.)

When people actually stand up, fess up , and accept the facts that they've probably created their own problems...then I'll show the appropriate amount of compassion.

In terms of social security...if people were simply responsible enough to live within their means (and that includes breeding a number of offspring that they themselves without the generosity of government officials at the federal, state and local level provide by taking from the responsible to give to the irresponsible) we'd be so much better off. To become "set" for retirement...you simply need to set aside 10% of your income each paycheck and invest in some investment vehicle...for the recent past...a stock mutual fund is probably the best place for your money.

I'm a beneficiary of the government's Thrift Savings Plan...and I save 13% of my salary before taxes for that "rainy day" or "golden years" I'll call my retirement. I'm here to tell you, it works! Are there ups and downs? Of course...no investment that returns much...is risk free. If you want something with a guaranteed rate of return, the best that you can hope for these days is about 2.5% at best. About the same as the current SS system grows at. However, if you are willing to invest in American corporations and business through the stock market, you will be rewarded for your risk.

Social Security is NOT a federal retirement program. It has never been intended to be ANYONE'S sole source of retirement income. One of the problems is that "we" now view it as an American birthright...and something that we're entitled to.

MajorDad1984

 
At 3:58 PM, Blogger Mike Thomas said...

Don't get too excited, MajorDad. Bush's plan to dismantle Social Security has less chance of getting off the ground than his proposal for a manned mission to Mars.
You're right that SS is not a federal retirement program and folks should not rely on it as their sole source of income. Nevertheless, many people still end up that way and we determined a long time ago that Herbert Hoover's government by neglect was an ineffective way to keep elderly people from falling into poverty whether as a result of poor planning or what have you.
SS was set up to serve as a supplement and a safety net - one that comes with a government-backed guarantee. If you eliminate that guarantee, as Bush is advocating, you guarantee that a certain percentage of elderly will end up on the losing end.
That's not worth it to me.

 
At 3:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice site!
[url=http://hkhjsomm.com/nwmw/flsl.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://zqrvauxr.com/mwrr/jsau.html]Cool site[/url]

 
At 3:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

 
At 3:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good design!
http://hkhjsomm.com/nwmw/flsl.html | http://hcqjhzbf.com/srvb/rjux.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home