repeat after me while clicking your heels together 3 times -

"there is no trust fund, toto"

(shhh - there's only receipts, outlays, & residuals dumped into (unobligated) general funds then slushed-out.)

"gee toto, we're happy, happy, happy they're gonna throw those corporate rats in jail"

"don't look behind the curtain, dorothy, cause there's no place like home"...

...said a grinning toto!

As long as quasi-socialist policies supercede reaping one's own rewards, thats exactly what will happen.

Bush's SS reform plan is hated because it will eventually mean that people who don't pay into the system cannot collect, and we can't have that.

Liberals do not want social security fixed the way it needs and should be fixed. They do not want private accounts where people can reap the rewards of their own contributions and provide more money and a better retirement. The liberal Democrats want to keep social security just the way it is only... they want people to pay more taxes to make up the deficit.

Why? Because as "jdhenshall" said, the liberals want and need the program just the way it is now to fund their socialist welfare and give-away programs. They need a pot of money that is not "owned" by individuals who have contributed to it for their retirement. They need an "ownerless" fund that can be tapped and used as they -- the liberals -- determine is best for their agenda.

The liberal Democrats scare tactics are nothing but lies intended to frighten those who are already drawing social security or who will begin drawing from social security in the near future. The liberal Democrats want to frighten them into believing they will have nothing and will have to fend for themselves. People don't realize how little social security returns and how much more they would have had for their retirement if the program had been fixed years ago.

First, we have to convince those who need social security payouts now that their benefits won't be affected. Then we will probably have to figure some way to phase out the old system and phase in the new one. Perhaps we could offer incentives to permit larger tax free, tax reduced, or tax deferred options where a portion of the larger contributions could applied to supporting the old system.

One way or another, the American people have to understand that the current system is broken. It will go bankrupt. And, it must be fixed now. The Democrats want to stall in hopes they will regain the majority status and can increase taxes on social security, income taxes, and wherever else they can to pay for their socialist dreams!

Back to another issue... Conservatives and Republican must get their voice back and start using it 24/7. They can't wait until each issue becomes a crisis. The issues must be before the American public continually to allow some of the facts to gradually sink in. The Democrats obviously have no interest in that!

Republicans must get smarter in how to use and turn the liberal Democrat positions back against the Democrats. Perhaps Republicans should hold weekly group strategy sessions. Republicans all to often fail to take advantage of ammuntion provided by the Democrats themselves!

AAR

"Liberals do not want social security fixed the way it needs and should be fixed.

As long as quasi-socialist policies supercede reaping one's own rewards, thats exactly what will happen."

Why hasn't there been privatization according to Bush's plan? The Republicans control the House, the Senate, the courts. And they still can't get any changes passed. Could it be there are enough decent politicians left to reject his plan? Doubtful. Could it be there are enough decent people that still see a need for a safety net causing representatives to fear changing it? More likely.

If politicians (of all stripes) could have kept their hands out of the cookie jar, the program would have worked ad infinitum.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Yes there needs to be some changes. But not as radical as the culture of greed would like.

OK, let's see if I have this straight. Democrats want their fellow citizens to have a chance to live out their old age in some comfort, regardless of wealth. (BAD DEMOCRATS). Whereas, the Republicans would have everyman fend for himself, regardless of the circumstances. (GOOD REPUBLICANS). How does this square with Christ's teachings?

Ash,

The social security system is broken. It is a pyramid scheme that would be declared illegal if it weren't the government who is keeping it alive. Just like any pyramid scam, it relies on more and more younger workers paying to keep the ever increasing number of retires receiving a piddly benefit.

Check those benefits. They barely pay enough to keep people alive, not enough for a life.

So, besides paying more taxes into a broken pyramid scam, what is your solution?

AAR

AAR,

My solution is the same as yours.
Let the people who want to destroy it fix it.

After that, we can elect Hamas to save Israel.

I'm getting more and more back to the basic organic reason I'm conservative: One's status in life will always be more choice than it will be circumstance.

Self-pity, laziness, and cursing life are among considerable forces that drive people lower and lower. Conversely, taking charge of the situation and finding the best way to cope, being able to have at least some foresight about the consequence to your actions, and being responsible for what you do yields different results.

Bottom line: The world sucks. Ignore or whine about reality or prepare for it and do your best.

Well AAR:

Social Security was never intended to be a stand alone retirement fund. It was meant to be supplemental It was meant to be a parachute for very poor people. The same people that live (sometimes barely) from paycheck to paycheck, or hand to mouth if you will. I consider myself fortunate enough to have been able to save some in a 401k that supplemented by my social security will allow me to live acceptably. I have been disciplining myself to get away from the consumer society. I have been suprised how little I miss the "things" I had lived for before. But I digress.

The pyramid you speak of should peak around 2040, and then there will be a decline in claimants. So the bubble in the middle, shall pass.

I'm not against paying more taxes if it helps benefit my fellow man. I am against the taxes that benefit Halliburton and Kellog Brown. I know you Republicans loathe taxes, but continue to fund a war that is...well that's another discussion. Besides taxes, I would accept a reduced monthly payment.

Like roads, traffic lights, police and fire protection, and competent military protection, I consider providing security for my less fortunate citizens, part of the responsibility of being a human being.

Canadian,

Read jdheshall's blunt and coarse explanation for why Republicans are the way they are. It is all part and parcel of the me first culture of greed.

I challenge anyone to read one of Luis Urrea's book (esp. By The Lake of Sleeping Children) and not come away with a better understanding of the enormous odds young Mexicans living on the border face surviving day to day. Let alone succeeding and becoming an insurance underwriter or some other muy important professional.

When W. was elected in 2004 I looked very seriously at moving to Canada. But alas my age and other factors like not having a skill in demand or a job lined up, made it impossible for me to move.

*dang*

Ash,

So, your solution is more of the same. Raise the social security taxes and continue the same bankrupt pyramid scam?

By your comment, I'm thinking you thought I meant "bubble" rather than "pyramid scheme". The system only works when more people pay into it than draw from it. I haven't heard of any decline in claimants in 2040 to the extent that will save the system. Maybe I missed that. It still needs an ever increasing number of people paying into it. The baby boom(s) provided that, but with those are declining and, except for illegal immigrants, no others on the horizon, there isn't that big bubble of increasing people paying into the system. Besides, by 2040, the system will be bankrupt!

As for welfare, we will always need some support for those who legitimately need it, but there are many who don't. We need to get people who are capable of earning their own living off of welfare, even if they don't want to work. That will help them enjoy a better standard of living, help the welfare system, help the economy, and help the taxpayers. It's time these multi-generation welfare families come to an abrupt end!

I'm glad to hear you saved for your retirement through a 401K. I'm sure you are glad you did; although, you may not have wanted to put your money into it at the time you started.

AAR

By some estimates, 60% of all Federal Taxes collected will be needed to fund direct payouts of Social Security benefits by 2040. Social Security currently consumes 22% of the Federal Budget; the largest obligation the government has, national defense is only 17% of the budget.

Liberals love to point to the National Debt and claim it’s our children’s liability, but conveniently ignore the looming Social Security bust because they want to blame the bust on republicans, and they can’t let Mr. Bush take credit for fixing the problem.

We have been aware of the actuarial unsoundness since 1983, yet we continue to run the program as a ponzi scheme, using income from investors like you and me to pay off trust holders; retirees. The difference between the SS scam and the National Debt is that the Debt is held by bond holders. As long as the economy continues to grow, the National Debt can be paid; Social Security debts increase with each passing day and our ability to pay out on the liability will begin shrinking as the shareholders (retirees) stop paying into the system and draw out from the resources.

Illegal aliens currently pay into the system with no hope of ever receiving benefits; understand why the sub-culture has been ignored up to this point?

Canadian Observer is the prototypical liberal; posts on an emotional level with no substantive argument for or against the issue. Being a liberal is easy; always say what makes you feel better, but never have to actually do anything that makes the situation better. Above all, be generous with someone else’s money.

Next they claim that someone’s grandmother would eat dog food if we change Social Security. Ash is no better; knowing full well that Social Security reform will require bi-partisan support and the democrats offer only scare-the-seniors talking points as a solution.

Why the democrats actively campaign on blocking Social Security reform is clear; they believe the American public has short memories and will forget whom to blame when the system begins going belly-up. The solution that democrats have favored since 1977 is to raise the payroll taxes on the employer and on the worker. In order for this to succeed payroll taxes would have to be at least 20% of the total payroll to cover the cost just over the next 15 years. After that payroll taxes, shared equally be the employer and the employee will have to rise to 50% of total payroll. At that point there will be one retiree for every 3.3 workers.

To fix the situation we have less and less choices as time goes by, raise payroll taxes is the first step. Next will be to means test the benefits; unfair to the ones that planned their retirement and rewards the loafers that didn’t, but what’s the choice? Then, allow younger workers to opt out by investing a portion of their benefits. Once the system becomes actuarially sound, invest the proceeds and pay out of the dividends and continue to re-invest the principle.

Finally, stop using the Social Security funds as a cash cow to pay for things never intended from this system; Congress needs to redefine what the proceeds are to be used for and stick with it. Because the workforce grew since the 1930’s congress has had excess money to promise for a vast array of benefits not for retirees, but for others on the periphery of the workforce that do not pay in, but only drain the system. Arrange for these recipients to get funds from social welfare sources, not Social Security.

Contrary to Ash’s claim that the “bubble” will pass, the dynamics of the debt has much more far-reaching effects; even raising taxes to cover the current payouts will require financing another debt, as the money from SS doesn’t come in on a daily basis, but the payouts still have to go out that way. The cost of short term financing can be extreme, and by today’s standard would almost be usury. The effect of the debt would continue for 20-30 years after the baby boomer generation has joined the choir invisible. In the meantime, there is a debt incurred from trying to run the rest of the government on 50% of the total proceeds. Whom would you suggest pay this money to keep our infrastructure in tact? The aren’t enough potential bondholders in this country to finance that.

Foreign investments would become our primary source of revenue; this source has remained constant since the 1980’s but will balloon because of the high interest rates we’ll be forced to pay just to keep our government operating.

What’s your solution, Ash?

My mistake, the government will have to run on 40% of the total proceeds in 2040, not 50%.

"by 2040, the system will be bankrupt!"

AAR,
Please define bankrupt. My understanding is that in 2042 or 2052 (depending on whose projections you use) the system will start to give out more than it takes in (but won't be out of funds until 2076 at least).

Here's an easy solve, get rid of the ceiling on payroll taxes (now $90K annually).
The way CEO pay is going up, this can solve the problem through our lifetimes.

Reject SS and other "liberal programs" all you want. Just remember, they helped build and sustain the middle class in this country.

BTW, how's that going under the Reagan Revolution?

Didn't Democratic President William Jefferson Clinton intend to use the budget surplus to help pay for social security but got sidetracked when the GOP-controlled Congress decided it was more important to impeach him for being an unfaithful husband and lying about it?

No, the "Budget Surplus" was the Social Security Trust fund.

And he was impeached for lying (something you're familiar with) under oath, and obstruction of justice.

Nobody trusted Bush or the republicans with these matters in the wake of the state of the Union speech in 2005. After Katrina,forget it. The latest Gallup poll puts his both his integrety and job approval rating with the public at 34%. How can he build consensus on any matter now which requires a national effort?
Not that he was ever interested in building consensus. He just corralled various portions of the electorate into various stables for his use whenever he or Rove felt the urge to do something. He never built a concensensus on anything. Now that he needs to, he can't.
One of the remarkable things about Clinton was that he was able to work with Congress, even after the impeachment fiasco. I wonder if Bush will need to do the same.

Dems, thanks for bankrupting social security and medicare. If President Bush's plan for private accounts had been enacted, the money the younger generation would have put into their private accounts would be soaring. Dems, thanks for letting my social security grow at 1 percent a year. Thanks for nothing. Dems, thanks also for the $3 a gallon gasoline. I will remember in November. Can we give our youth the choice of private accounts now. Can we build another refinery now. Can we drill in ANWAR and off the coast now. Can we build a nuclear plant now. Dems, thanks also for trying to protect bin ladens telephone calls to his terrorist buddies in the USA. I will remember that in November also. God bless you President George W. Bush, the greatest president in American history.

"And he was impeached for lying (something you're familiar with) under oath, and obstruction of justice."

You left out the part where he was exonerated by a Republican House Judiciary Comittee after spending over $70 million. And he was exonerated in Whitewater, exonerated in the Vince Foster suicide, exonerated in the campaign finance reform, exonerated in the White House travel office deal, exonerated in the FBI File case...

The best the Republicans could do for $70 million is get his lawyer license suspended. Yep, that really showed him.

If you don't like those apples, then this November, let's kick out all those incompetent Republicans who failed to convict Clinton.

With so much corruption and so many errors made within the Republican Party, why this obsession with Clinton? Leave the man alone and concentrate
on cleaning up the mess you've made of everything.

This is what liberals do; slight of hand. If you can't win on facts, simply change the subject.
Democrats are pandering on Social Security, you have no plan and you don't understand the problem.

Clinton was impeached.

"exonerated"?
Are you joking? You honestly don't understand the judicial system if you believe that a lack of a conviction is an exoneration.

He beat the rap; how proud you must be.

But, what does any of that have to do with social security?

I'm not ignoring you guys, I just got pretty busy at work. Will respond later.

If you want a preview, I will tell you I don't have the definitive answer. I suspect there isn't one.

"So, your solution is more of the same. Raise the social security taxes and continue the same bankrupt pyramid scam?"

Well AAR, Republicans have been saying that for 60 years since the SS program came into existence. They continue to hate it for the same reason they hated it then, it has worked, and we all know Repubs hate any social program that works.

Listen I hate taxes as much as the next person. I particularly hate every penny of mine that is supporting our war machine. But we have agreed as a people we can't just fund those programs we like and ignore the ones we don't. And there are some services that are essential.

"Why the democrats actively campaign on blocking Social Security reform is clear; they believe the American public has short memories and will forget whom to blame when the system begins going belly-up.

While that may be clear to you, Bane, it's flat out wrong. And this is why we can't communicate. It is impossible for you to believe and therefore understand that some people just want to do the right thing without having some Dickensonian motive. It's hard for you to understand that money just doesn't motivate everyone. That there are some altruistic people out there.

"The solution that democrats have favored since 1977 is to raise the payroll taxes on the employer and on the worker"

I can't speak for all Democrats, but I will tell you I favor raising the limit of income that is SSI taxable. What is it now, after $90K no SS taxes are paid? Lets raise that, in fact let's eradicate that limit altogether. I don't have the figures at hand but will get them, because this will eradicate much of the problem.

"Clinton was impeached."

You may live to regret that statement, Bane. Bush's second term isn't up yet.

Ash said,
'Republicans have been saying that (raise taxes) for 60 years since the SS program came into existence."
Can you offer any proof of that statement?

"I favor raising the limit of income that is SSI taxable."

You might want to research the issue, raising the cap on SS will effect 10.4 million taxpayers that have already met their obligation. Lifting the cap would be the largest tax hike in US history; and it would be an economic busting tax hike.

Clinton was impeached; that’s a fact. You liberals brought up Clinton, not me.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the motives of the democrats for refusing to even offer a plan for saving Social Security. Didn't Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi announce that Social Security is in no danger?

Robert, or Ash whomever ...
SS will give out more than it takes in arount 2012 - 2017, depending on who's doing the calculations.
"they helped build and sustain the middle class in this country."

Just how, in the h*ll do you figure that? Government sponsered social programs built the middle class? That simply defies logic.

"Liberals love to point to the National Debt and claim it’s our children’s liability"

Now boon to liberals, this is a really rich statement, coming from someone who supports a president that has increased the national debt by more that all other presidents combined. Trying to finance war (profiteers) and reduce taxes at the same time.....tsk, tsk

Boon,

Republicans have been saying that (raise taxes) for 60 years since the SS program came into existence."

Your addition in parenthesis was a misrepresentation of my point. It should have read:

Republicans have been saying that (bankrupt pyramid scam) for 60 years since the SS program came into existence."

I think it goes without saying Republicans never met a tax they didn't hate.

"You might want to research the issue, raising the cap on SS will effect 10.4 million taxpayers that have already met their obligation."

I'm not sure what you mean here. How could they have met their obligation if they don't pay SSI taxes on everything they earn?

Did I miss something? Was Clinton convicted and removed from office? Did he resign? No, he was EXONERATED by a REPUBLICAN House. The liberals didn't let him off. The REPUBLICANS found him innocent. They slapped his hand by suspending his "lawyer permit" but he was found INNOCENT and finished his term. Unless you've heard something I haven't heard.

The REPUBLICANS spent $70 million for nothing. Not the Dems.

What to do about SS is simple: raise the cap.

You righties are happy to let the AMT eviscerate the middle class without doing a darn thing about it, just pretend you're not raising taxes and let inflation do your dirty work. But the response to cap raises is always "whaaaa, let granny die. I'm not covering her wheelchair-bound butt. Let's give SS to WALL STREET! Yeah, that'll fix it."

1. "Raising the cap on SS will effect 10.4 million taxpayers that have already met their obligation."

It will also enable those 10.4 million to benefit from the safety net WE have paid into OUR whole working lives, rather than kill it just as WE retire.

2. "Lifting the cap would be the largest tax hike in US history;"

Nonsense. Fear-mongering. Cry-baby politics. Lifting the cap by one penny would be nothing. Removing the cap entirely would be the biggest tax hike. The reality is in the middle.

3. "and it would be an economic busting tax hike."

Whaaa? That's one of those statements that rings truthy, but in fact means nothing. An "economic busting tax hike." Meaningless. The tax hike "read my lips" GHW Bush enacted lead to one of the biggest economic expansions ever, and balanced the budget.

E.X.O.N.E.R.A.T.E.D Come on, you can say it. Your REPUBLICAN House Judiciary did. Hey, honestly, I thought Clinton got off way to easy. That panty-waisted House Judiciary should have spanked Billy for his indiscretions. So did my wife. She hates the fact the Hillary is still with the cad. But they let him off. Go figure.

"Thanks for nothing. Dems, thanks also for the $3 a gallon gasoline."

Now, who controls our Government?

Rhona,

Have you heard of Democratic filibusters -- threatened or actual? Have you heard of the RINOs who often vote with the Dims?

If Republicans can get a real majority, especially in the Senate, you will see things change.

If you think Republicans are responsible for the high oil prices, go back and read some of the prior posts on previous topics. I won't go back through them here, but the Democrats have blocked and obstructed the building of new refineries, drilling in ANWR and off our coasts, blocked or hindered efforts to use our oil shale and more coal, new nuclear power plants, and more. Ted Kennedy is even in trouble with environmentalists for blocking efforts to use wind energy off the coast of Massachusetts!

Add to that the fact that other countries like China and India have good economies and are using much more oil.

AAR

Congressive is an idiot so I won’t bother to discuss that pap.

Ash,
Here are the facts; the parenthesis will indicate who supported the facts.

Raising the cap won’t fix Social Security because, 1) At best it would delay the bankruptcy by 7 years (AARP). 2) Even though the “rich” would pay more, they would also drain more (SSA). 3) Individuals pay SS Taxes and companies pay the matching amount as payroll taxes; this effects small business mostly as the income to the sole proprietorship is also the equity of the owner, this then requires the small business owner to pay payroll taxes on the entire income of the company (Heritage Foundation). 4) Reduce take home pay for 10.4 million Americans; Decrease economic growth significantly and reduce job creation by small business (Center for Data Analysis). 5) The largest tax increase in US History, more than $461 billion over the first five years, effecting middle class America (NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS). 6) There is no “surplus” in the trust fund; (see OhioOrrin's post)the SS money is immediately “borrowed” by the US Treasury to meet its obligations, by increasing the surplus over the next 15 years will increase the bond obligations by $3 trillion (NCfPA). 7) Small business owners are the major purchasers of capital equipment; with increased payroll taxes ($20 billion per year) there is less to capitalize purchases, causing a decline in durable goods (Heritage Foundation).

Liberals usually short sighted “soak the rich” philosophy would cripple the economy in a few years; that is an indisputable fact. After Pelosi and Reid issued a statement a year ago claiming that "Social Security is not in crises” fools like congressive and robert believe that there is plenty of money lying around that the awful Republicans are hiding from us. Congressive’s selfish “just as WE retire” statement indicates that he is one of those loafers that didn’t plan for retirement and simply expects the government to take care of him. But, what do you expect from someone that defends a perjurer that lied to save his sorry butt.

Because you selectively lift sentences from my posts I’ll clarify the issue of the National Debt and the Social Security debt; Nation Debt is owned by bondholders; the Social Security debt is pay as you go. Don’t take my statements out of context to make a simple minded premise. Either make a point of admit you don’t have any real input. I expect debate; not Barney gotcha-games.

Congressive,
You might want to check out Congress' actions on AMT; it wasn't democrats that addressed the issue.

Well Boon do me afavor and cut your posts into more edible bites. I have a phone that rings off the hook, so find it hard to always follow a long post.

I will take one paragraph that jumps out at me and answer you at this time:

"Liberals usually short sighted “soak the rich” philosophy would cripple the economy in a few years; that is an indisputable fact."

Well I just don't see it that way. How is asking someone to pay their fair share soaking the rich? And that is your indisputalable fact. Not mine.

one of those loafers that didn’t plan for retirement and simply expects the government to take care of him

Obviously you either choose to ignore or refuse to accept the fact that there are people who live so tightly from paycheck to paycheck that saving for retirement falls far below eating, heating, rent, medicine. So don't lump all people into one category. As far as expecting the government to take care of them, well caring for it's weaker citizens is one of the highest aspirations a government should strive for. But beyond that, I have paid into social security all my life. All I ask is that I receive that at the end of my working days. Personally I have been able to save some but the extra I have been saving (via SSI) will make things easier for me.

As far as my input, there are many ways to look at an issue boon. Accounting statistics are just one way. A more emotive, intuitive way is another. So rather than heap insults on each other, lets work together. I have outlined a couple of good reasons why there should be a safety net. How about you presenting the details make that possible?

Maybe a conscience is my addition to the debate.

Ash,
It’s a shame you jumped over the meat of the post and fixated on the idea that accountants are heartless bean counters.

I’ll cut it into digestible pieces;
First and foremost, you want the super rich to pay taxes on all income earned, ignoring the fact that the employer also pays. As a small business owner the business income is my income; by not topping the contribution I must make, you are taking money that would be used to expand the business, capitalize purchases and employ people; not very compassionate.

If you believe that 10.4 million Americans are not paying their fair share, and that asking people to forego hiring, increasing the unemployment roles, put off purchasing capital goods, continue to sink money into a failed system with no hope of ever getting anything back, much less what they’ve invested, then the debate is over. These people aren't super rich, they're middle America!

The indisputable fact is that raising the cap will devastate the economy. That’s the thing about facts; they are by nature facts and cannot be changed. I thought you were above arguing facts; you can offer an alternative, but facts are facts; not my facts or your facts, just facts.

Social security can be a safety net, but it will require major changes. Those like congressive that live on minimum wage, paycheck to paycheck can opt to stay in the system. Those who have a modicum of common sense would take their money screaming from this debacle, and allow themselves to make a fair retirement.

Mostly, what I hear form the left-of-center is that someone else has to come up with more money so that I can have my government sponsored retirement; this smacks of the kind of selfishness I read in congressive’s post, and “I just find selfishness to be a perverted philosophy.”

It’s a shame you jumped over the meat of the post and fixated on the idea that accountants are heartless bean counters

Quick response- you dispute this?

"Congressive is an idiot so I won’t bother to discuss that pap."

Now that's the way to begin an intelligent debate.

1."Raising the cap won’t fix Social Security because, 1) At best it would delay the bankruptcy by 7 years (AARP)"

Nonsensical. Raising the cap by how much? Sounds like an official statistic endorsed by AARP, but stating seven years without stating the change says nothing.

2. "2) Even though the “rich” would pay more, they would also drain more (SSA)."

Does this include the seven year extension mentioned before? This sound like voodoo. Again, with no stats it sound like raving. "More" is not a statistic. Everyone who pays "more" into SS gets "more" back NOW. "Drain" agendizes the statement.

3. "3) Individuals pay SS Taxes and companies pay the matching amount as payroll taxes; this effects small business mostly as the income to the sole proprietorship is also the equity of the owner, this then requires the small business owner to pay payroll taxes on the entire income of the company (Heritage Foundation)."

The Heritage Foundation is not exactly impartial in this debate (conservative think tank that they are). Regardless, you seem to be advocating a greater portion of this expense should be born by BIG business, which I couldn't agree with more. Walmart benefits disproportionately from not haveing to offer pensions because of SS. Why don't they pay a proportionate amount, instead of a regressive rate that spanks small business?

4. "4) Reduce take home pay for 10.4 million Americans; Decrease economic growth significantly and reduce job creation by small business (Center for Data Analysis)"

You left off "Heritage Foundation" from Center for Data Analysis. It's the same conservative think tank who's purpose is to interpret data with a conservative slant. Again, not exactly impartial. Taxes that pay GW's salary, and provide police, fire, safe water, highways, etc etc ALL "reduce take home pay." All this, including SS, is the price you pay for living in an intelligent, compassionate, civilized country. As conservatives seem so fond of saying, if you hate this country so much, move. I hear the Sudan has a creative solution for dealing with it's social problems that may be more to your liking...

5. "5) The largest tax increase in US History, more than $461 billion over the first five years, effecting middle class America (NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS)."

National Center for Policy Analysis (ncpa.org) ALSO says "Want to save Social Security... Cancel the tax cuts for super rich folks who don’t need them. Stop invading countries who don’t threaten us. Shut out the special interest groups who do threaten us by buying our politicians and ignore the ideologues, special pleaders and character assassins they hire to manipulate rather than inform us." But that quote doesn't fit your agenda.

6. "Congressive’s selfish “just as WE retire” statement indicates that he is one of those loafers that didn’t plan for retirement and simply expects the government to take care of him."

You don't know a thing about my "loafers." I haven't been unemployed in twenty five years. That's EXACTLY the point. I've been paying in to SS for that long instead of putting that amount away. You BET I'm being quid pro quo selfish when I say I expect to receive the same treatment I have been willing to give older generations.

Let's get this one concept REALLY clear: Loafers DON'T COLLECT SOCIAL SECURITY! Loafers spend their parent's money. For SS, you MUST be vested, and your payout is proportionate to your input. My choice to keep my family medically insured, my mortgage payments current, pay my taxes and feed and cloth my wife and children for the last two decades on a working man's salary is not "loafing". If you are 35 years old, and "borrowing" the downpayment on your house/car/trailer/dental work from your parents, you are a loafer. If you are employed, providing invaluable services to your employer, contributing to their profitability, allowing them to pay out dividends to stockholders because you are working for a barely livable wage, you are not a loafer. You are an average American.

But again, I am disappointed that such personal attacks on an individual poster as "congressive is an idiot" are an accepted response here.

These people aren't super rich, they're middle America!: middle America makes 90 grand or more? Please. This is your problem, as a business owner you don't realize middle America has to live on less than that.

First and foremost, you want the super rich to pay taxes on all income earned, ignoring the fact that the employer also pays. Yes, I do.

As a small business owner the business income is my income; Ah, this explains a lot. There are lies, damned lies and statistics

The indisputable fact is that raising the cap will devastate the economy. No, that's still just your opinion.

Those who have a modicum of common sense would take their money screaming from this debacle, and allow themselves to make a fair retirement. Now your arrogance is showing. Modicum of common sense? Again you don't understand people who have that modicum, but not enough resources

you are taking money that would be used to expand the business, capitalize purchases and employ people; not very compassionate. Or perhaps I am forcing you to be more efficient.

someone else has to come up with more money so that I can have my government sponsored retirement; No again I say, just pay your fair share.

Ash,
Ancillary discussion, no because,
• Small business employs people, people get hurt when they lose their jobs,
• Accountants are employed to keep businesses honest,
• Accountants safeguard such things as retirement funds,
• When Accountants go bad entire industries are damaged (Arthur Anderson),
• Accountants advise people on ways to save money, send their kids to college, and retire comfortably,
• Accountants consider the “human factor” when building models,
• No matter what model we build Social Security does not have a happy ending,
• Next time you need someone to investigate a crooked financial deal or a will or estate question, don’t call a forensic accountant; call someone that “feels your pain.”

I see neither of you has offered anything except contrarianism’s,

You’ve cited nothing in support of your argument, no statistics to back up your claims; you argue facts and toss around euphemisms.

If either of you offer anything except “it isn’t so” let me know.

Okay, Bane three questions before I let this go. You know and I know we will never convince each other of our beliefs. Lies, damned lies and statistics, is my motto. Yours is touchy feely phooy.

1) You say you operate a small business. Do you employ anyone? If so do you offer health care? Do you offer a pension plan? Do you offer and match 401k plans?

2) Why haven't the Republicans been able to get any of their privitization plans passed? You control the Senate, House, Executive Branch and Courts. Social Security is one of the ideals that define us as a society. Like inventiveness. Patriotism. Industious. People somehow know this and would throw any bum out that voted against it.

3) I'd say the accountants ain't been doing there job, as I watch Kenneth Lay on the nightly news. How long did that go on before the bean counters caught it. Sure they finally caught him but a)How many lives have been destroyed before he was caught and b) This took so long to catch a high profile company, must it not just be the tip of the iceberg.

Forensic Accountant? Dude that has a sexy ring to it. Beanie, Forensic Accountant, starring Howie Mandel premiers following CSI Miami.

Don't take this personally Boon. I'm just having fun and you seem wound a little tight. Smile.

Okay, you asked politely, I’ll answer.

First, I am a government fiscal analyst; I do this for a living. My job is to make things run more efficient; when has raising taxes ever made a company more efficient?

I have owned two successful businesses in the past, I sold them both. At present, my wife owns a law firm, this is a community property State and she is a sole proprietor. Therefore, all of her income from the law firm is combined with my income and all of that is subject to taxes. Payroll taxes we pay are for ourselves and the business’ part of the employees that work at the firm.

A law firm is by nature top-heavy in income, so the retirement is a profit sharing plan that involves business contributions to the staff, while they can invest in the plan using their own contributions; mutually assured risk.

As mentioned in earlier posts, neither party can fix Social Security by themselves, it takes a bi-partisan effort. When the President tried to focus attention of the problem, his political enemies did their demagogue best to scare the voters away from any solution, and campaigned on anti-reform claiming ther is no threat to Social Security. Congressive is typical of the people that were convinced by this; “I've been paying in to SS for that long instead of putting that amount away”. But his money is gone; his payments went directly to my mother, if she were still alive, I doubt she’d thank him; she thought she was putting away money since 1938 when she started working. Under Bush’s plan younger workers can actually put money away for retirement, and earn interest on it.

To his credit, Mr. Bush stuck with his beliefs that something has to be done, and invited the democrats to discuss the issue. In the SOTU address he said that nothing was off the table, but still the democrats refused to offer any solutions or consul.

$94,600 is, I believe the cutoff for SSI, there is currently no cutoff for the Medicare portion, SS at about 6% (Medicare is around 1.65%), above this point this is a 12% tax to small business owners. There is no minimum; all earnings for the people at the lowest levels are taxed at the same rate, the entire payroll tax system is regressive.

Enron’s accounting firm was Arthur Anderson. At the time I began my career AA was the gold standard of accounting firms; Arthur himself would have been humiliated had he been around to see what they did to his good name. When accountants go bad, entire industries can go under. The scam involved shady accounting practices, and dishonest reporting. Even once the house of cards began to collapse, the forensic accountants had to be led to the heart of the scam, it was that complicated.

Accountants aren’t boring people; we’re just terribly excited by boring things.

Sorry abut the delay getting back with you. I had to drive my Cadillac to the bank and cash my SS check. I was out of Michelob.

Hey you're costing money dude. If you work for the government I'm paying your salary. Get back to work and stop chatting online.

LOL

See we're both humans, no?

As a government worker I'm entitled to do this or porn sites. I think it's in the contract somewere.
That is, when I'm not making you wait in line, betcha didn't know we go to classes to learn how to be surly.

They train you well. "You" in the collective sense Bane.