Ya just gotta love this.  Can you say "marketing ploy"?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/social_security_taxes

Guess I will take one for the team, whether I like it or not. I just wish that people would call a tax increase what it is, and raising the SS cap definitely is a tax increase. But given that the alternative is almost surely anarchy, I will accept the tax increase.

The funny thing is that if they raise the tax (which includes me too) as Bush is saying the system will essentially be fixed because that will take care of the baby boom generation which is what this whole problem is all about.

So what is all the hub-bub about here folks? Sounds like we've got a fairly painless way to shore up the surplus.

Am I missing something?

The "privatization facilitators" don't get their cut!

all those assclowns in Washington won't be salivating at finding ways to carve it up for "other" uses?

They refuse to admit that the raiding of the surplus over the years was contributory to the problem (hell, that bimbo Boxer won't even admit there's a problem).

It's time for a new Constitutional Ammendment, one that makes congressional service strictly voluntary and caps expenses. And we might as well restrict the size of their staffs as well, maybe three aides each-no more.

I don't care what party they are from, they're all just a bunch of greedy parasitic leeches trying to take MY money away so they can pass it along to their political backers.

Reo you honestly believe that if they can get an added Trillion

Qoute,"I don't care what party they are from, they're all just a bunch of greedy parasitic leeches trying to take MY money away so they can pass it along to their political backers"

Finally, something we can all agree on... LOL

If we make it all voluntary the only ones that will be able to afford to serve will already be among the wealthy set who go up there to the hill to make deals to benefit their wealthy circle of friends (as well as themselves in their private endeavors).

I wish the "voluntary" thing were a solution. But I think you have to actually pay them MORE and  EXPEcT MORE with extremely strict rules regarding "conflict of interest" which we do not have right now. Almost everybody up there has varying degrees of "conflict of interest" starting from the very top office of the land.

right to vote. Remember, all of our senators and members of the house are elected, as is the POS and the VEEP. If they people that elected them all wanted someone else, then we would have someone else. Maybe you would rather have rule by one point of view, eventhough the majority of voters vote for a different point of view?
So tell me. If we made serving in the US house and senate "voluntary", how would the right "volunteer" be chosen? What happens when more than one person bid for the job as is the case in most elections? How would you chose the "right" person from among the many that offer themselves up? While the right to vote is not perfect, it is a well designed tool that has served our republic well since our country's first election.

It's happened on this board. The voters spoke and we re-elected Bush. Some of the anti-Bush crowd have called the electorate stupid and applied other negative connotations.

You have also misconstrued the meaning of "voluntary". Stamina made the best argument in his post, which I think had some merit, yet I still am not sure I totally agree with.

My point is not how the DC crowd is selected, it's the motivation for them to be there. Early congressional service did not pay salaries, just a small expense stipend. Governing was a part time endeavor. The earlier congress was farmers and businessmen, not failed lawyers and professional political hacks.

We need to get back to that. We don't need to reform the Constitution, we need to reform the rules that the crooks operate under. Tie congressional salaries to median income levels. Don't allow congress to vote themselves raises & benefits. Change the legislative process so that a bill addresses ONE specific issue, without all the added riders and crap that gets tacked on. Reduce the size of the beauracracy in DC.

The people that voted for Bill Clinton twice were also called stupid also. How do you feel about that? The issue of sore losers aside, I stick by 100% of what I wrote. The people that represent us can be held accountable by our votes. An elected person can be recalled, IF the majority of voters agree that that person should be recalled.
While our founding fathers put toghether timelessly pertinent documents in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the modern world is too complex for us to be represented by part time representatives.
The issue is not that our representatives are corrupt or narrowly focused, it is that we as voters are too lazy to hold them accountable. I always try to fix the basic problem before I move to tearing down and rebuilding the machinery.

So you're stuck with the people you send to DC.

And, you have mis-represented my post.

We need to make it undesirable for the "elected" representation to disreagrd the voter's intention as they do now. Unlike many conservatives, I am in favor of even stronger campaign finance reform. I think that banning ALL soft money is imperative. I would even go so far as supporting a national election fund. No more contributions to the "party of choice".

Instead, create a fund for all to donate to. Then, establish minimum registration levels for each party based upon population and voting probability. In other words, if there are 1 million eligible and probable voters and at least 5% are registered as libertarian, then the libertarian party gets an equal share of the available fund. Allocate 75% of the fund to be ivided among all the eligible parties EQUALLY.

The remaining 25% is set aside for after election distribution for last minute expenses, again to be distributed equally. All expenses must be accoutned for. A panel of independents (possibly judges) reviews advertising for political campaigns and ads that are deliberately misrepresntative must be removed.

Also, all media are to be held accountable for the content of their presentations. There won't be any 60 minute broadcasts, or some of the shenanigans that Fox pulled as well.

And I beg that no political advertising is allowed the final week or two before the election (wouldn't we ALL enjoy that!).

And the 5-0-whatever organizations would lose tax exempt status.

It's never gonna happen, but it's one way to try and clean up the mess.

Reo you honestly believe that if they can get an added Trillion

I must have missed it when they changed the Constitution where they made serving in Congress mandatory. I thought it still is voluntary. No one is forced to run for Congress.  You're also misrepresenting the position of Senator Boxer and the Democrats. They are not saying that there isn't a problem with Social Security, they  being realistic in pointing out that it is not the crisis that Bush is painting.  You might want to lay off of the Kool Aid for a while.

Since senators and members of the house are elected via state elections, the state laws on recall cover them. The constitution simply mentions representation for every state in the union. Who the voters of a state have to represent them is the business of the voters in each state of the union.
The suggestions that you made in your last post are a recipe for rule by the few instead of rule by the people. You mentioned a small panel of judges that would have ultimate discretion in deciding whether campaign money is spent correctly or not. But again I ask you, who will choose those judges and what qualifications would they need to be considered for their positions?
The current politcal system sometimes gives us self-servers and occasionally bozos, but the founding fathers, who knew what it was like to live under totalitarianism, wisely made it such that we will never again have to shed blood to excaps an absolute ruler.
The great thing about presidents, like them or not, is they stay around no longer than eight years and many of their beloved policies get neutered by time. Senators and US house members can stay around longer, but they do so with the blessing of the majority of the people in their state or district.

I wish I could find the speech she made, but she said "there is no problem with Social Security." "If we had to, in the future we could reduce payments to ~70% of full benefits."

Here's her own writing: "There is no crisis in Social Security. Scare tactics are being used to frighten the American people in an attempt to end Social Security."

As well as this one: "So clearly, Social Security is not in crisis, is not bankrupt, and is not collapsing."

And I love this one: "According to the most conservative estimates, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits for 38 years. In other words, a 37-year-old worker today will get full benefits until he or she is 75 years old if we do nothing to make adjustments to the Trust Fund. A 47-year old worker today will get full benefits until he or she is 85 years old if nothing is done."

Please NOTE those last 4 words; "if nothing is done"

So, if there's nothing wrong, WHY THE HELL WOULD THE BITCH PUT IN THE DISCLAIMER?

Boxer is an incompetent slut who needs to be run out of Washington, tarred & feathered, on a railroad tie. She's an obstructionist hack who toes the party line and is impossible to work with. Her allegiance is not to the people of California, it's to her whacked out, Berkley buddies. The bitch MUST be doing massive amounts of cocaine becuase her barian has rotted away.

I said there was no recall provision in the Constitution. I was correct. The legality of state recalls is still undecided for Federal positions, since it's never been done.

The proposal I submitted was a basic plan, it would need greater study, but THE POINT was to bring financial reform and some degree of stability to the election process by TRYING to equalize the playing field and eliminate some of the rhetorical bullshit that was foisted on the voters during the last campaign.

I'vee seen campaigning get worse and worse. Every attempt to level the field results in each side coming up with new ways to corrupt the election process.

We no longer vote about issues, it's now a case of who's the least desirable based on the sound bites we hear. And boards like this one are no better. There's minimal political DISCUSSION, it's mostly finger pointing and partisan CRAP.

The board's existence is merely to keep all these posts out of the general board. It's easier to manage the lunatics when you have them all locked in one room instead of running around the city.

A couple websites that EVERYONE on this board should become familiar with:

http://www.constitution.org/
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

If you had bothered to read the rest of Boxer's speech that you linked to you pretty much proved my point.  You're right that the key words there are "if nothing is done" if that's what the Democrats are advocating but they're not. As Boxer said "There is a challenge we should address."

Her argument is that there is no immediate crisis, a position that is supported by almost every sane person looking at the issue.  Even if there was a crisis, the Bush plan does nothing to solve the SS liquidity issue, but instead borrows trillions of dollars to fund privatization

She then lists five reasosn to be dubious about the Bush plan:

Of course we should be used to this by now from this administration. They are the ones who told us that tax cuts to the wealthiest among us would bring unparalleled economic growth – which hasn't happened.

They are the ones who told us that $50 to $100 billion of oil in Iraq would pay for all the reconstruction of that country – which hasn't happened.

They are the ones who told us "Mission Accomplished," when tragically it wasn’t.

They are the ones who told us that a booming economy would lower our deficits – and they are now the highest in history.

They are the ones who told us that the Medicare prescription drug bill would cost $400 billion over 10 years – when, in fact, it is now reported to cost $1.2 trillion.

So a message I have for the American people is this: beware of scare tactics and false information. This isn't the first time that this president has predicted the end of Social Security. In 1978, as a candidate for Congress, he predicted the end of Social Security by the end of 1988. He was wrong then, and he is wrong now."

That was Boxer's senate website, so they've had a chance to clean up and format the propaganda.

Yes, I read the site (how the f**k else would I have gotten the quotes.....geez.....).

The quotes were to reinforce the speech that the bitch made where she came out and stated there was no problem with Social Security. And then two sentences later she claimed that if they did nothing they could still pay out 70+% off full benefits.

You Dem supporters are blind. The Dem position is "there is no problem!"  Then they come out and say "but anyway, we won't go insolvent".

As usual, they're trying to have it both ways, but then again, what can you expect from a party who's leadership claimed "I never had sexual relations with that woman" and oral "sex" isn't sex.

My final post on this topic because you're byeond missing the point, you don;'t want to see the point. You've obvioulsy taken a page form the Karl Rove playbook: when the facts aren't on your side, just make things up, repeat it enough and the public will buy it.   Read this part slow so you understand it: the position of Boxer and the Democrats is that there needs to be some changes to Social Security so let's take some time and figure out what the best long term solution is.  There is no immediate crisis and the solution is not to take money out of the system for privatization which will funded by $1 trillion or more of public debt.

So save your name calling answer me this: how does the Bush plan help the SS system meet its future obligations?