Ms. Baker,

As you suggesed, I looked at the 1983 legislation voting record, and you are correct that more Republican senators voted in favor of this legislaton than Democrats. But, you failed to mention that many more Democrat congressmen voted for the legislation than Republican congressmen. Also, it should be noted that substantial numbers of senators and congressmen of both parties missed the vote on what is called the last significant legislation regarding social security, so the conclusion that you are advancing is a little bit of a stretch. When I look at these facts, I see a mixed message from both parties.

The rest of your facts are really a reflection of your biases. What facts support your view that President Clinton "recognized" the looming difficulties of this shell game? Clinton talked about concerns about social security only to resist calls to reduce federal income taxes because of the growing budget surpluses. He used social security concerns as a justification for avoiding any tax cuts. And, in the end, he never made any push to really do anything about social security. He never encouraged or used political capital to make changes. Bill Clinton never was willing to take political risks while he was president, and most surely "messing" with social security is a political risk. It's fine to talk about your concerns, but to actually do something would have been mighty risky, and Clinton would have likely had Dick Morris do an opinion poll to consider the American people's views of any such move in advance. I'm sure that poll suggested to Clinton that he should remain hands-off or risk the ire of millions of Americans.

It's true that it took George Bush's election to finally realize the tax cuts that were due to Americans, that Clinton and the Democrats successfully avoided for 8 years, and many Americans, who actually pay income tax, have enjoyed a reduced tax burden as a result. And, increasing deficits are of a concern and need to be addressed, but if you consider that the tax cuts were the only and sole reason why we have budget deficits now is misleading. The American economy began its slide before Clinton left office, and Bush inherited an already stagnating economy. The attacks of 911 increased the problems, but our economy is on the rise after some hard years. So, your "facts" don't completely support and justify your conclusions. I'd say that Democrat and Republican senators and congressmen both have responsibility for the state of social security and getting it fixed. It's in our best interests for them to work together in a bipartisan manner, than trying to assign blame for our current state. Neither party is blameless in this matter, and neither gets any great credit for efforts to solve the problem.

From the facts you present, I'd rather see Social Security die and go away than have my taxes increased. Let's do away with the whole thing and just let me keep my money.

Teddy Ballgame, You chide Ms. Baker for speaking of what Clinton "recognized" as being her bias then you went on to do the very same thing you admonished her for. You said "Clinton talked about concerns about social security only to resist...", "He used social security concerns as a justification...", "Bill Clinton never was willing to take political risks..." and "I'm sure that poll suggested to Clinton...". Do I detect a wee bit of bias in your opinions (for that is what those quotes are)? Yep!

The paragraph after that you opinioned what Bush "recognized" and what he thought and what he did with the same bias. Seems to me you have a different set of rules for yourself. Just an observation.

Rather than defend your political position why don't you read Bush's proposal and argue its merits or offer what changes you might like to see?

I agree to never try to benefit from Social Security if the government will give me back all my contributions plus interest. Imagine the money the government would save.

Yvonne,

In the 1920's Carlo Ponzi ran a nifty racquet similar to the Social Security pyramid scheme until it went belly up. And SS woulld have gone bust years ago without the infusuion of more and more payroll tax increases and the 85% tax rate on the benefits passed with the help of John Kerry. You no doubt buy the Keynes whistling through the graveyard saying of the national debt " well , we just owe it to ourselves ". At least President Bush has shown responsibility to put it all on the table . The negativism of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and their cronies at AARP is no plan. They plain just will not to agree to anything , well except for their usual call to soak the rich. Thev voters rejected that and if the Democrats are concerned about solving the problem they will sit down at the table and negotiate in good faith. Yvonne if the Democrats have a plan I haven't heard it. If you have spell it out a defend it. We are waiting.

Look back over time and this nation has always been in better shape when the democrats are in control.
now chew that awhile

Yvonne,

I have come to realize that you will aways come to the rescue to muck-up any discussion on any issue. Yes, my post reflected some of my biases, that is true, but you didn't really get the full impact of what I was saying in my comments. You were only interested in finding fault. This issue isn't about whose biases are right and whose are wrong. There's blame aplenty here. I will stick by my origianal observation, though, that Ms. Baker attempted to prove her case with a half truth. She referred to the facts as suporting her position, but she ignored some of the other facts in arriving at her conclusion, and she drew the conclusion that actions by President Reagan and President bush were responsible for problems with social security and out economy. I don't believe that it is all that simple.

If you read my post carefully, I said that both parties have fault in this matter, and that they need to come together in a non-partisan way to solve the problem. Affixing fault here and playing politics with social security helps no one.

And, for your information, Yvonne, I am familiar with the problems that afflict social security, and I am aware of President Bush's proposal. Have you expended the necessary time to do underastand both yourself? And, there is no evidence that President Clinton did nothing more regarding the social security crisis than express concern and talk about it, as six years later, we still have the same problems facing us. If you can cite some documented sources that prove that he did otherwise, please share them with us. We'd love to see them.

I am so sick and tired of hearing that President Bush's tax cuts only went to his wealthy friends because that is an outright lie. I got a tax-cut and I am certainly not wealthy. The so-called budget surplus was never real money to begin with and if it weren't for tax cuts you liberals would have found something to blow it on.I wish some of you that work for a living would take a look at all the taxes and fees we pay. Take a dollar for example: You get taxed when you earn it, taxed when you spend it, taxed if you save it, taxed when buy a house, taxed on your house and property, make improvements on your house and get penalized with higher taxes, get a better education to get a better paying job and guess what: higher taxes. get taxed on food, clothing, water, gasoline and even owning a pet. So what's wrong with someone wanting to give some of your own money back? Oh I forgot it is because he was a Republican. I'm sorry but I think you all are blinded by your own liberal ignorance

"Look back over time and this nation has always been in better shape when the democrats are in control.
now chew that awhile"

Okay, I chewed on it awhile. When Jimmy Carter was president their was the Iran Hostage Crisis, gas prices skyrocketed, interest rates were astronomical.

When Kennedy and Johnson were president, they launched us into the Vietnam war where thousands of our young men died without any plan for victory.

When Franklin Roosevelt was president, we were involved in World War 2 and thousands of our young men died in war then, too.

Yeah, the good old days.

It is indeed necessary to be clear about this so called Social Security "trust fund". It is not nor never has been one. When it began to pay bebefits, the ratio of those who paid in as opposed to those who received benefits was 40 to 1.
Today that has slipped to 3 to 1 and by 2017 it will be in the negative ; and of course the rate( tax ) has grown from 2% to 12%. Unless benefits are cut that will have to rise to 18%.

In 1935 President FDR told Congress that it would be necessary in 30 years or so to have voluntarity contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts in old age. It's time to avert the inevitable crisis by fixing once and for all what has been broke for too long.

Just a small correction to ms. jackson's information above. US troops were first sent to Vietnam by Eisenhour in 1959, not by Kennedy. Don't believe it? Google it.