Nuclear Option in the Senate

Published on May 10, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics

The GOP is playing a dangerous game by threatening to change the rules of the Senate. The GOP claims the president deserves an up or down vote on his judicial nominations. If that is true, many more judicial nominations under Clinton never got an up or down vote because they were bottled up in committee. If the objective is an UP or DOWN vote, the tactics of the Republicans during the Clinton administration to prevent a vote through committee is just as much of a problem is holding up a vote in the Senate through filibuster. The end result is the same in both scenarios - no UP or DOWN vote.

Only nine of the Bush judges out of over 200 have not been approved by the Senate. If the Republicans force this change of the Senate rules, I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate. The old saying , "Be careful what you asked for " may come back to haunt the Republicans.

Comments (Page 3)

COL Gene

on May 11, 2005

And the majority of other Americans!

drmiler

on May 11, 2005

I believe the majority want Congress to fund Social Security so it can continue to pay the full benefits to current and future generations. The do not want to change it. The majority do not support what Bush wants to do.

The first 2 words of your reply say it all....." I believe". which means you do not have facts to back that up what your saying.

And the majority of other Americans!

NO PROOF! Just your opinion, once again.

COL Gene

on May 11, 2005

Polls, news articles, letters to the editor- All say the same thing- The majority do not want the individual accounts and they want SS to be able to pay the promised benefits!

Zoomba

on May 11, 2005

Polls - Not a real indicator of true wants and wishes... Bush wouldn't have won if we went by polls
News Articles - Every news agency has its bias... I don't look to the news for truth anymore when it comes to politics
Letters to the Editor - People write when they're angry. If they're fine with something they don't write. How often do you see a letter to the editor that says how good things are right now? What you're seeing there is a vocal minority. If you want to see a similar effect, go to the forums for any Massively Multiplayer Online Game (I suggest World of Warcraft). If you went by what everyone wrote on the forums, you'd think it was a horrid game and that the developers ate newborn babies for breakfast and then pissed on their mothers graves. Those who enjoy the game are silent and play.

The majority will truely be felt when the next large election comes up. Remember this plan has to go through Congress too, and it's a ways away from doing that. Once it goes there, representatives have to decide on their own, weigh it against the opinions of those they represent. These guys love their jobs too much to pass a change that they know their people don't like.

You're basing your view of the American publics opinions on your own shading of a limited amount of data. There are millions of people out there, and honestly no one has one freaking clue what they all think. It's often been wondered what would happen if we someday got a 100% voter turn out in an election... the guess is that we wouldn't be able to predict it for shit with polls or models....

Lee1776

on May 11, 2005

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 25-26, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).

"Thinking about Social Security contributions, do you think people under age 55 should have the right to choose between keeping all of their contributions in the current system and investing a portion of their contributions?"

ALL: Yes-79% No-13% Unsure-8%
Under 55: Yes-84% No-11% Unsure-5%
55 & older: Yes-74% No-15% Unsure-11%

"Based on what you know about the Social Security personal investment proposal, would you want the choice to invest a portion of your Social Security contributions in stocks or mutual funds?"

4/25-26/05: Yes-53% No-37% Unsure-9%
2/8-9/05: Yes-48% No-40% Unsure-12%

_______________________________________

CBS News Poll. April 13-16, 2005. N=1,149 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you think the Social Security system will have the money available to provide the benefits you expect for your retirement?"

4/13-16/05 Yes-36% No-51% Already getting bennifits-8% Unsure-5%

"Some people have suggested allowing individuals to invest portions of their Social Security taxes on their own, which might allow them to make more money for their retirement, but would involve greater risk. Do you think allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes on their own is a good idea or a bad idea?"

4/13-16/05: Good Idea-45% Bad Idea-49% Unsure-6%

__________________________________________________

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 1-2, 2005. Adults nationwide.

"Do you think political leaders in this country are moving too slowly, or moving at an appropriate pace in taking up legislation to change the Social Security system?" Options rotated. N=1,040, MoE ± 3.

4/1-2/05: Too Slowly-61% Approperate speed:-29% Too Fast-7% Unsure-3%

___________________________________________________

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 17-21, 2005. N=1,505 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"How much, if anything, have you heard about a proposal which would allow younger workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private retirement accounts, which might include stocks or mutual funds? Have you heard a lot, a little or nothing at all?"

3/17-21/05: A Lot-46% A little-32% Nothing-22% Unsure-0%

"Generally, do you favor or oppose this proposal?"

3/17-21/05 Favor-44% Oppose-40% Unsure-16%

______________________________________________________

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 10-13, 2005. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.

"If changes are not made, do you think the Social Security system is heading for a crisis down the road, or not?"

3/10-13/05 Yes-71% No-23% Crisis Already-1% Unsure-5%

______________________________________________________

I believe and what looks like the polls believe, that something has to be done now. If you like Bush's plan or not, the people want something done. Since the Democrats refuse to even nagotiate at all or provide any altrenate plan other then continue with the old system we have. I believe in the end, while the people don't like Bush's plan, he will not be the one getting hurt, because he at least tryed.

What is worse:

1. Trying to plug a hole in a sinking ship with something that looks like it will not work.

2. Refusing to even help plug the leak just because you don't like the captain and let the ship sink around you?

drmiler

on May 11, 2005

Lee1776, you should post this on one of the *col* blogs, he'd get a kick out of this.

Lee1776

on May 11, 2005

Lee1776, you should post this on one of the *col* blogs, he'd get a kick out of this.

Naaa, he'll see it soon enough. At one time I would post multiple times with the same thing, just to get the common since word out, but I have notice those who ignore common since will have a habit to continuing the same thing anyway. After the third time it makes me feel like I'm the one trolling.

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

There are two questions about the Bush individual account issue.

First, will the individual accounts make Social Security more able to pay the full benefits ? Answer NO. In fact, if that option became law, every dollar placed into individual accounts makes the financial problem of Social Security worse and moves up the date when the full benefits can not be paid.

Second, will individual accounts mean higher payments? For some YES and others NO. It will depend on the market at the time a person retires and how much their Social Security benefits will be reduced if they shift part of their taxes into these individual accounts. What happens to a person who selects the individual accounts and at retirement finds their benefit is less then it would have been under the old system? If Social Security is a safety net or a floor for retirement, why introduce the unknown of the market into this safety net. The place for equity investments is OVER and ABOVE the safety net of Social Security.

We need to make sure the baby boomers will receive their full benefits and encourage everyone to have investments above Social Security. There is no question the existing system will require more assets in the tust Fund unless, like Bush you fix the problem by cutting benefits. If you choose to fix the problem by cutting benefits, we should no nothing since that is what will happen with no change to Social Security. Starting in 2042, Social Security will only pay about 75% of benfits which is a cut the same as Bush is suggesting. Then HOW in what Bush wants, cutting benefits, a solution?

drmiler

on May 12, 2005

There are two questions about the Bush individual account issue.

First, will the individual accounts make Social Security more able to pay the full benefits ? Answer NO. In fact, if that option became law, every dollar placed into individual accounts makes the financial problem of Social Security worse and moves up the date when the full benefits can not be paid.

Second, will individual accounts mean higher payments? For some YES and others NO. It will depend on the market at the time a person retires and how much their Social Security benefits will be reduced if they shift part of their taxes into these individual accounts. What happens to a person who selects the individual accounts and at retirement finds their benefit is less then it would have been under the old system? If Social Security is a safety net or a floor for retirement, why introduce the unknown of the market into this safety net. The place for equity investments is OVER and ABOVE the safety net of Social Security.

We need to make sure the baby boomer's will receive their full benefits and encourage everyone to have investments above Social Security. There is no question the existing system will require more assets in the trust Fund unless, like Bush you fix the problem by cutting benefits. If you choose to fix the problem by cutting benefits, we should no nothing since that is what will happen with no change to Social Security. Starting in 2042, Social Security will only pay about 75% of benefits which is a cut the same the same as Bush is suggesting. Then HOW in what Bush wants, cutting benefits, a solution?

Nope, your missing the point entirely. "Your" saying americans don't want something. But yet all the quoted polls show your wrong. Yet again. And just an FYI we've had this discussion before. Bush is NOT cutting ANY SS benefits. Now knock off the propaganda

Island Dog

on May 12, 2005

Somebody should start taking count on how many times the col has been proved wrong.

MasonM

on May 12, 2005

Somebody should start taking count on how many times the col has been proved wrong.

Maybe we could take a poll about it.

Zoomba

on May 12, 2005

Col is like Dabe, unless you agree 100% with what they're saying, they'll ignore any point you make. For example, as soon as he lost the argument over the topic of this article (the up/down vote rule) he shifted to Bush being a dictator, about how Social Security is against the will of the people etc...

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

No the polls below prove I am Correct!

Poll: Social Security plan support drops
By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Only one in three Americans approve of President Bush's handling of Social Security, his lowest rating on the issue since he took office.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted Friday-Sunday found that 35% approved of Bush's Social Security record, 56% disapproved and 9% had no opinion. That was down from three weeks ago, when 43% approved. In March 2001, just after he took office, 49% approved

Social Security Plan

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer Fri May 6, 2:40 PM ET

WASHINGTON -
President Bush is pushing for dramatic changes to the nation's policy on
Social Security at a time the public is grouchy about the nation's direction, skeptical about his proposed solutions and sharply divided along partisan lines, an AP-Ipsos poll found.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

"I approve — except that he's not getting anywhere," John Rose, a retiree from Fort Lauderdale, Fla. said of Bush's Social Security proposals. "He should be doing a better job of selling it."

Six in 10 disapprove of the president's handling of Social Security after Bush spent the last two months campaigning across the nation for the changes.

A week ago, the president tried to build some momentum for his proposal by asking future middle- and higher-income retirees to accept smaller benefit checks than they're currently slated to receive as part of a package to keep the system solvent. His proposal would call for benefits for low-income workers to "grow faster than for people who are better off."

The poll found 56 percent of respondents are not willing to give up some promised benefits, while 40 percent say they are. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents are opposed to that proposal.

Bush says that younger workers in particular could offset the loss with proceeds from the private investment accounts he wants to establish. Bush has said the current program will not change for workers age 55 and older.

The president is trying to sell these dramatic changes at a time of public anxiety about the nation's direction. Almost six in 10, 59 percent, said the country is headed down the wrong track.

Bush's job approval is at 47 percent with 51 percent disapproving, and his approval on areas like handling
Iraq, the economy and assorted domestic issues is in the low 40s.

ADVERTISER LINK

* Schwab Active Trader

originalreportoriginalreport
Poll: Bush's Social Security Plan Is Tough Sell
President's Job Approval Steady, But Most Americans Don't Like His Social Security Plans
President Bush discusses his Social Security reform proposals

President Bush shares his Social Security reform proposals with an audience in Shreveport, La., on March 11, 2005. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Analysis by GARY LANGER

March 14, 2005 — President Bush's Social Security road show is playing to a tough audience: Not only do most Americans oppose his effort to revamp the retirement system, but nearly six in 10 in a new poll also say that the more they hear about it, the less they like it.

In the midst of a 60-day drive by Bush to build public support for his Social Security initiative, this ABC News/Washington Post poll shows no movement in Bush's direction. Americans oppose his plans by 55 percent to 37 percent, and the intensity of sentiment is against him: Those who are "strongly" opposed outnumber strong supporters by a 2-to-1 margin.

Resources

* The Polling Unit: Archives

Top Stories

* Podcast: The AfterNote
* Bolton's Chances for Approval Brighten
* The Note: Freedom's Light Burning Warm

Just 10 percent rate Social Security as the top priority for Bush and Congress, placing it last of five issues tested. Only 35 percent approve of Bush's handling of the issue, a career low. And by a 12-point margin, 49 percent to 37 percent, the public better trusts the Democrats in Congress to handle Social Security, unchanged since Bush began the policy push in mid-January.

Bush's Social Security Proposals
Support 37%
Strongly 16
Somewhat 21
Oppose 55
Strongly 35
Somewhat 20

The results run counter to the administration's claims that fuller information will turn opinion.

Inside Politics
Poll: Support wanes for Bush's Social Security plan

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Posted: 7:05 PM EST (0005 GMT)

Image
President Bush promotes his Social Security reforms in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Tuesday.

What's this?

Compare Mortgage Offers
Up to four free mortgage, refinance or home equity offers - one easy form.
www.nextag.com
Refinance Rates Hit Record Lows
Get $150,000 loan for $720 per month. Refinance while rates are low.
www.lowermybills.com
MyCashNow - $100 - $1,000 Overnight
Payday Loan Cash goes in your account overnight. Very low fees. Fast decisions....
www.mycashnow.com
LendingTree.com - Official Site
Lendingtree - Find a mortgage, refinance, home equity or auto loan now. Receive...
www.lendingtree.com

RELATED
Interactive: CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
• Bush cites progress in debate
• Bush, McCain promote Social Security plan
SPECIAL REPORT
• Bush: Politics stalling Bolton vote
• GOP building support for filibuster rule change
• Highlights: Bush budget
• Gallery: The Bush Cabinet
• Special Report
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
George W. Bush
Social Security Administration
Retirement
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Support for President Bush's proposal to revamp Social Security -- allowing younger workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private retirement accounts -- is sliding, according to a poll out Tuesday.

In the CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 909 adult Americans taken Friday through Sunday, 40 percent approved of President Bush's approach to Social Security and 53 percent disapproved. The question had a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

When the polling question did not mention cutting benefits, Bush's proposal drew 45 percent support and 47 percent opposition. It was posed to 466 people, carrying a 4.5 percentage point margin of error.

But when 443 of the 909 polled were asked whether they supported private retirement accounts in exchange for a reduction of guaranteed retirement benefits, support fell to 33 percent, while opposition rose to 59 percent. The question had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

Tuesday's poll is the latest to show falling public support for Bush's Social Security proposal.

In a poll taken February 7-10, 36 percent of those surveyed supported individual accounts even if that meant benefit cuts, while 60 percent opposed them.

In polls conducted February 4-6 and January 7-9, 40 percent supported the plan under those circumstances, while 55 percent opposed it.

ParaTed2k

on May 12, 2005

To answer the question, "why shouldn't they" Answer the great Compermise in the Congress was to make sure in the Senate protected the interests of the minority groups and the house was based on the majority.

We have a dictatorship with Bush and the conservatives. What they want is NOT what the majority want but they continue passing laws that ignore what the majority want! We need a split in the power so there must be compermise!

Here we have to quotes that conclusively prove that you have no idea what you are talking about. The Constitution says nothing about the Senate protecting the interests of the minority group. The Senate's purpose is to be the voice of the State at the federal level. The House of Representatives has the Constitutional mandate to represent the People of their district.

If by "comprimise" you are referring to the large states vs. small states comprimise when the U.S. was born, that argument was based on voting population, not demographics.

Then you go on to blatantly lie. You are an educated man. You know the difference between a dictatorship and a representative republic. Still you blather on about Prs. Bush being a "dictator" simply because you don't accept his policies. A dictator would have no reason to have to get his nominees confirmed by a senate. A "dictator" would not have to put up with being questioned about a plan for Social Security. You are simply a fool who just can't stand the president. I can respect your opinions and commentary about a president you don't like; that is what freedom is all about. However, being a lying fool is just pathetic.

The question should never be a matter of who brought it up, who it will benefit or what the polls say. The question of whether or not the rules should be changed should be; Is the change more Constitutional than the status quo.

I had a CO once who had a Ranger tab. We used to jokingly wonder how many quarters he had to put in a military patch machine before he got the ranger tab... Even though I know of your accomplishments and what it really took to get your rank, sir, sometimes I wonder how many quarters went into that same machine before you got the Birds you were after. You just don't seem to know your history or civics well enough to even pull off a decent argument.

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

I do not pretend to have all the answers but I do research issues before I put them on this blog site. The problem with Bushies is when any data or information makes it look like their precious leader is in any way wrong and something is negative, one of three things happenes. First, they attack the messenger. Second, they attack the data. Third, they change the subject and ignore the information they believe critical of Bush.There is never an attempt to objectively look at the results of what we're doing and say maybe we should try something different to be more effective. Instead there is a stonewall defense and a "stay the course" and even when what is being done is hurting the American economy public or future we keep on going.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!