| Author |
Message |
    
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:03 pm: | 
|
I received this invitation from Congressman Pascrell this afternoon. He indicates that all are welcome to attend.
February 17, 2005
Dear (Notehead):
On February 23, 2005, I will host a Town Hall meeting in Montclair to discuss the current state of Social Security. I encourage constituents from all over the Eighth Congressional District to attend. During the forum, I will discuss the President's Social Security proposal to divert funding into private accounts. I will share the policies that I am fighting for in Washington, and give you an opportunity to pose any questions regarding the future of your Social Security benefits.
SOCIAL SECURITY TOWN HALL MEETING
WHEN:
6:30, Wednesday, February 23
WHERE:
Montclair Town Hall
205 Claremont Avenue
Montclair, NJ 07042
I look forward to seeing you on February 23 and remind you to contact me if ever I may assist you regarding any federal matter.
|
Strawberry Alarm Clock
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4543
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:05 pm: |
|
maybe you and I can go together. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2094
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
from MoveOn.org regarding these "town hall" meetings...
Dear MoveOn member,
Nearly 500,000 MoveOn members like you have signed our petition opposing Social Security privatization and benefit cuts. Recently, Bush has had to back away from his rhetoric about Social Security facing a "crisis." Democratic Senators are united in opposing the plan. Now the battle for Social Security is coming to a town near you.
The next few weeks may be a pivotal moment in this fight, as members of Congress come home to face their constituents on this issue for the first time. While he's home, Congressman Pascrell is holding a town hall meeting on Social Security to hear from the people. If enough of us show up in opposition to Bush's plan, the whole thing could die here.
Across the country, thousands of us will be going to these meetings. Can we count on you to join us?
This is our best chance to reach our members of Congress. Even those already opposed to privatization need a boost of confidence. Local news reporters will attend these meetings to see how they go -- you can help prove that there's a large constituency for staying the course.
Attending a town hall meeting is easy. You can speak from the heart about why Social Security is so important to your family or you can use the basic talking points we've provided below. It's important for your representative in Congress to see people are paying attention to this issue and watching how he votes.
Town hall meetings are happening nationwide. Find one near you right now:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=640&zip=07079
We've come a long way since Bush announced his plan for private accounts. Now let's take it to our members of Congress, who will make or break his plan.
Thanks for all you do.
Sincerely,
--Tom Matzzie, Eli Pariser, Noah T. Winer, and the whole MoveOn.org team
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005
P.S. If you like, here are some talking points on the Republican Social Security plan:
- George Bush's plan would make massive cuts in Social Security benefits for future retirees in order to pay for private accounts. Privatization diverts Social Security taxes used to pay current benefits into private accounts. Without that money, Social Security benefits will inevitably be cut -- up to 46 percent for future retirees.
- Privatization means trillions of dollars of new national debt. Because current Social Security taxes are used to pay for private accounts taking that money out means huge deficits -- as high as $15 trillion over the next 40 years.
- The Republican plan would turn a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble. The stock market is risky and can't be predicted -- that could means millions of people don't have the money they need when they need it.
- Social Security is not going bankrupt, contrary to the president's claims. That is a deception perpetrated in order to create the urgency for radical changes. Under conservative forecasts, the long-term challenges in Social Security do not manifest themselves until 2042. Even then Social Security has 70 percent of needed funds. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 43
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
SS is good till 2072--BOomers will be dead--"outlays drop" says CBO---
This graph from the CBO shows that outlays go down when the Boomers die. Page 5 from this PDF file--figure one.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/60xx/doc6068/02-03-SocialSec...
SS Trustees say
Economic growth of 1.8% means SS is good untill 2042
CBO says
Economic growth of 2.4% means SS is good untill 2052
I say
Economic growth of 3.0% means SS is good untill 2062
I say
Economic growth of 3.6% means SS is good untill 2072
The USA has averaged 3.5% growth for the last 100 years.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3335
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:08 pm: |
|
I've challeneged you on your assumptions before and you've failed to respond. There is no graph that show that outlays drop to the point that the program is sustainable at the benefit levels that are promised. You want to show me how they're wrong, or just keep posting the same assertion over and over again, Foj? Your link doesn't work.
I don't expect anything back from you, but hope I'm pleasantly surprised. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 842
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 11:57 pm: |
|
Pascrell is doing what all democrat congressmen are doing, dutifully presenting the identical script in their home districts. It's anti Bush and anti anything he addresses.
Don't ever try to improve a broken system which is geared to keep a certain party able to dole out entitlements/benefits/dollars.
Not fixing it won't hurt me, but I am concerned for my children and so on.
|
Lucky13
Citizen
Username: Lucky13
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:02 am: |
|
reflective-
please convince other republicans to campaign on your theme of SS as a politically motivated entitlement. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5989
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
/discus/messages/26018/63590.html?1111680869 |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3336
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Someone needs to label them what they are. Welfare Junkies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61696-2005Mar23.html |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 833
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
cjc, while I don't necessarily disagree with the article, I'm curious about your thoughts on this part:
quote:If these costs are too high (and I think they are), the only way to curb them is to cut benefits. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to face that reality. President Bush's proposal for "personal accounts" diverts the debate. To enhance their appeal, he promises to exempt anyone 55 or older (anyone born in 1950 or earlier) from any benefit cuts. Some other proposals lower the exemption to 45 (anyone born in 1960 or earlier). Well, that covers most of the baby boom, which stretched from 1946 to 1964. If the real problem is the baby boomers' retirement costs and you exempt baby boomers from benefit cuts, then by definition you ignore the problem.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5992
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
Why is welfare a dirty word?
quote:Main Entry: 1wel·fare
Pronunciation: 'wel-"far, -"fer
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from the phrase wel faren to fare well
1 :the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
Sure, I think addiction to that sounds good.
Well, SS is a pooling of resources, which necessarily leads to benefits out of proportion to contributions. The alternative is everyone for himself/herself.
I don't actually believe you favor that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I suspect you think pooling of some resources is good. I don't know why you draw the line before SS, though. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3337
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Rastro -- I agree with entirely exempting those who wouldn't be able to get up to speed using private accounts, but going from a line of 55 and older to 45 is pure politics.
Tom -- welfare is (thankfully) a dirty word because it's living at the expense of others. The alternative is encouraging and educating people to live on what they earn and providing a minimum safety net of welfare for those who can't or won't. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
you think SS is more than a minimum safety net?
Do you think people who have only SS as income are buying champagne and caviar? The maximum benefit is $1,800 a month. And the average is about $1,500 for a couple.
Woo-hoo! Let's party! |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1721
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Doc - exactly right
CJC - if you look at figure one at this link it appears to show what Foj says it does. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6068&sequence=0 |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3339
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
DAMN! I can't access that site either. I'll keep trying.
So how does this work with the SSA chart on outlays which do not show a dramatic drop in obligations?
And no one is saying SS allows the high life. Look at the tremendous amount of money that goes into something that -- without any compounding or effective return -- spits out relatively nothing on the back end. And you're hurting the potential of the vast majority of people to provide for themselves and tying that capital up in a 'safety net.' I'm not talking about means-testing the program. Pay for the disabled and destitute and let us work the rest out for ourselves. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
this is a useless argument. anyone who considers that SS tax is the government "stealing" from us isn't going to be persuaded that there is anything good about the system. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5994
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
cjc, if you are talking about paying for the destitute, then you want to use someone's definition of what destitute is. So how can you not be talking about a means test? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
bottom line is - a lot of people just don't want to pay any taxes. period.
fact is, all of us in Maplewood are paying a boatload of taxes if you add it all up. Would I like to pay less? absolutely. I'd love to have an extra $5K or $10K to invest on my own. I'd like to get back my share of the cost of the war in Iraq, and Pentagon boondoggles to mention a couple of things I'm paying for. I'd also like it to rain gumdrops in the summer and ice cream sundaes in the winter, but that ain't happenin' either. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3342
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Could you name two? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3343
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
"bottom line is - a lot of people just don't want to pay any taxes. period."
So I was just curious if you could name two people who don't want to pay 'any' taxes. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
there are plenty of people who feel they shouldn't be compelled to pay taxes. you've never heard anyone call income taxes "confiscatory?" does that sound like they're willingly paying taxes and considering it a civic duty? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
I actually found more than two - an entire "society" of people (The Free Enterprise Society) who believe in abolishing federal income tax, but don't seem to want to replace it with anything:
quote:There is no argument which can justify replacement of the income tax with any type of alternative tax.
So go figure. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5998
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Doctor, you let cjc take you off track. The point is, lots of people, easy to find, not in any fringe movement, think that taxes that pay for entitlements such as SS are a bad idea. That's you, cjc, right? I'm sure it's unfair to characterize you as opposing all taxes, so where do you draw the line?
And let's get back to a question I posed to you earlier: if you are willing to help the destitute, how do you do that without a means test? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3358
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 1:09 am: |
|
Thanks Doc. Just thought I'd ask. I imagine the Free Enterprise Society wishes to harken back to when tarrifs were the means of federal taxation. A taxation which for the most part funded the government until the income tax was started.
Tom -- Let me start by saying the destitute aren't the middle class, and charity and welfare aren't the issue. Entitlements - what which people can rightfully demand by simply being breathing citizens -- is the issue. The rub here is the effort to increase entitlements for the middle class. Especially when they're increased via a demand upon others and there's no 'thank you' attached to it. How hard is it to vote for someone else to pay for you simply because you think they have it? But don't, DON'T call it welfare, because they'd feel bad about it then. That's the reason why AARP is cool to having upper income people pay to make Social Security solvent (as I saw today on cable), because there would be a disconnent upon what you paid into the system and what you receive from it. Like there isn't now????
Nonetheless, if Congress passed it as we hear Krugman cite tax cuts by George Bush and taking general revenues and not FICA taxes to plus the hole, AARP would take it. Because taking from a minority is easy. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page