OT: Civil War: GOP finger-pointing begins

<http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/042605/gop.html>

Some congressional Republicans who have been trying to craft a Social
Security reform package say their efforts have been undercut by an
unlikely source: conservatives whose top priority is to restructure the
program.

As President Bush has struggled to gain traction on Social Security
reform, Republicans have repeatedly criticized Democrats for refusing
to negotiate on changing the entitlement system.

But some say that Bush should look to his right for scapegoats if
Congress does not pass a Social Security bill this year. They blame
conservatives for drawing several lines in the sand and refusing to
consider compromises.

Conservatives have been outspoken on what should - and should not -
be in a Social Security reform measure. Outside groups that are a
driving force in the GOP have attacked Republicans for suggesting that
raising taxes could be part of reform legislation.

A Senate Republican leadership aide expressed frustration with
conservative groups' rhetoric. While Bush and GOP congressional
leaders say they are open to many ideas, conservatives have panned the
everything-is-on-the-table approach.

"We should have no conditions before we start talking," the Senate
leadership staffer said. "If you start narrowing the ideas, there's
nothing left to negotiate."


"There is a splinter in the Republican Party on how this should be
addressed," another Senate Republican aide said.

Rep. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.), a senior Ways and Means Committee member, said
he has noticed "some negative stuff coming out" of certain groups,
which he declined to name.

"They don't understand that politics is the art of compromise,"
he added.

Shaw's Social Security reform plan proposes "add-on" accounts
instead of "carve-outs" favored by many conservatives. The
carve-outs would be financed from diverting payroll taxes, while
add-ons would be paid for through tax credits.

"The problem with the far left and the far right," Shaw said, "is
that they have a my-way-or-the-highway approach."

....

Learning Richard, 4/29/2005, 11:07:31 AM,
<1114787251.127456.160980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "The problem with the far left and the far right," Shaw said, "is
> that they have a my-way-or-the-highway approach."[/color]

If they had a Toyota 4Runner they could go either on the highway or
make their own way through the woods.

--
For your convenience I have included forums that you may find
interesting.
alt.discuss.politics,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.congres
s,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.conservative,alt.politics.democrat,a
lt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.liberal,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.p
olitics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.republicans,alt.politics.world

Learning Richard wrote:
[color=blue]
> <http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/042605/gop.html>
>
> Some congressional Republicans who have been trying to craft a Social
> Security reform package say their efforts have been undercut by an
> unlikely source: conservatives whose top priority is to restructure the
> program.[/color]

And the moral of the whole mess...

WHO CARES. Live and plan your own retirement as expecting those
bums to actually deliver anything to you is smoke and mirrors
until you see the check 30 or more years from now.

Also - who ever said it was a God-given right to have the
government take care of your sorry but when you get old?
Isn't that the job of your own planning and family?

When FDR introduce SS to the country, he said it was not intended
to be a retirement plan but rather a safety net.


mike hunt



Joseph Oberlander wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Learning Richard wrote:
>[color=green]
> > <http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/042605/gop.html>
> >
> > Some congressional Republicans who have been trying to craft a Social
> > Security reform package say their efforts have been undercut by an
> > unlikely source: conservatives whose top priority is to restructure the
> > program.[/color]
>
> And the moral of the whole mess...
>
> WHO CARES. Live and plan your own retirement as expecting those
> bums to actually deliver anything to you is smoke and mirrors
> until you see the check 30 or more years from now.
>
> Also - who ever said it was a God-given right to have the
> government take care of your sorry but when you get old?
> Isn't that the job of your own planning and family?[/color]

In article <42729BAE.5133EC72@mailcity.com>, [email]MajorDomo@mailcity.com[/email]
wrote:
[color=blue]
> When FDR introduce SS to the country, he said it was not intended
> to be a retirement plan but rather a safety net.
>
>
> mike hunt[/color]

LOL, now it's a retirement plan and the Democrats say we need a safety
net........duh or what?


[color=blue]
>
>
>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > Learning Richard wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > <[url]http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/042605/gop.h[/url]
> > > tml>
> > >
> > > Some congressional Republicans who have been trying to craft a Social
> > > Security reform package say their efforts have been undercut by an
> > > unlikely source: conservatives whose top priority is to restructure the
> > > program.[/color]
> >
> > And the moral of the whole mess...
> >
> > WHO CARES. Live and plan your own retirement as expecting those
> > bums to actually deliver anything to you is smoke and mirrors
> > until you see the check 30 or more years from now.
> >
> > Also - who ever said it was a God-given right to have the
> > government take care of your sorry but when you get old?
> > Isn't that the job of your own planning and family?[/color][/color]
--

It does not matter what the republicans do. Since, at most they
have 55 votes in the Senate. Without at least five democrat
vote, nothing can get through the Senate. The last thing the
democrats want is for the republicans to get credit for, once and
for all, putting SS on a sound footing.

The Presidents new tax laws has reduced the income tax load for
many millions of poorer American by at least one third,
particualry those with children. Many have even had their taxes
reduce to zero.. despite what the democrats would have us
believe. However, even if one need no longer pay federal income
taxes, everyone has to pay the 12 1/2% SS taxes on wages up to
$90,000. FICA tax by law are a flat tax unlike the income tax so
raising the taxes on those near the bottom even one percent would
be a burden. Raising the income level above 90K would simply add
a greater burden in the future pay outs with higher benefits to
those less likely to need the income in retirement. The
President said he will not sign a bill that includes higher
FICA taxes, in any event.


mike hunt



Learning Richard wrote:[color=blue]
>
> <http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/042605/gop.html>
>
> Some congressional Republicans who have been trying to craft a Social
> Security reform package say their efforts have been undercut by an
> unlikely source: conservatives whose top priority is to restructure the
> program.
>
> As President Bush has struggled to gain traction on Social Security
> reform, Republicans have repeatedly criticized Democrats for refusing
> to negotiate on changing the entitlement system.
>
> But some say that Bush should look to his right for scapegoats if
> Congress does not pass a Social Security bill this year. They blame
> conservatives for drawing several lines in the sand and refusing to
> consider compromises.
>
> Conservatives have been outspoken on what should - and should not -
> be in a Social Security reform measure. Outside groups that are a
> driving force in the GOP have attacked Republicans for suggesting that
> raising taxes could be part of reform legislation.
>
> A Senate Republican leadership aide expressed frustration with
> conservative groups' rhetoric. While Bush and GOP congressional
> leaders say they are open to many ideas, conservatives have panned the
> everything-is-on-the-table approach.
>
> "We should have no conditions before we start talking," the Senate
> leadership staffer said. "If you start narrowing the ideas, there's
> nothing left to negotiate."
>
> "There is a splinter in the Republican Party on how this should be
> addressed," another Senate Republican aide said.
>
> Rep. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.), a senior Ways and Means Committee member, said
> he has noticed "some negative stuff coming out" of certain groups,
> which he declined to name.
>
> "They don't understand that politics is the art of compromise,"
> he added.
>
> Shaw's Social Security reform plan proposes "add-on" accounts
> instead of "carve-outs" favored by many conservatives. The
> carve-outs would be financed from diverting payroll taxes, while
> add-ons would be paid for through tax credits.
>
> "The problem with the far left and the far right," Shaw said, "is
> that they have a my-way-or-the-highway approach."
>
> ...[/color]