Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

A 2nd Democrat for Social Security Changes

Senate Social Security Reform Democrat Sen. Tom Carper D-Del

  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#21 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 12:35 PM

Quote

And those of you who think social security is not worth saving, I'm curious, do you know any retired people? Any elderly widows? Ask them if their monthly social security check is a scam.

My grandmother is retired. Had she been allowed to invest the same amount of money even conservatively in interest-bearing CDs (again, including employer contribution, which is part of your salary that you never see), she'd be better off now. But, again, while I may oppose the program on ideological grounds, I recognize that it's firmly entrenched and the responsible thing to do is simply to make sure it stays in existence as is. Public opinion isn't on my side, and I realize that's not likely to change in the near future. And even if it was, the transition costs would be too much to bear. [On the flip side, Social Security is a net gain for you if, like in Nonny's case, you're disabled. But for *most* people it's not, at least not according to any projections I've seen vs. even low-risk CD's.].

In sum, there's basically two arguments:
-- Is social security a good idea? Moot point; it's popular and costs too much to scrap. It's here for the long-haul.
-- Is it a good idea to privatize it? I've yet to see an argument that it is.

Delvo—I must admit, I was one of those who thought Social Security was in trouble, because I bought into the conventional wisdom. And when various analyses started showing up on the liberal blogs (Drum, Yselgais, Marshall, etc.), I was initially skeptical. However, I've yet to hear a sound argument for privatization. The program is good until at least 2042 (because, remember: Payroll taxes paid into the system. It's not the SSA's fault that congress squandered it; congress simply has to pay that money back. How they do that isn't Social Security's problem). I wish all of our problems were 37 years away, at worst.

Instead, how about we forget about social security privatization, repeal Bush's tax cuts for the top 5% or so, and try to get the 2005 budget back on track? Making a reasonable effort to balance the budget this year should be something everybody can agree on.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#22 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 12:44 PM

Missed this bit:

Quote

Spectacles:
Just to clarify, do you mean you pay 12% of your gross wages each pay period to social security? If so, you might want to take that up with your employer. If I'm understand it correctly, the SSI tax is supposed to be 6.2% of your earnings, with the employer matching it. In addition, there's a 1.45% Medicare tax.

Like I do, I assume that post was counting the employer contribution as part of one's wages; it's just part the government takes and you never see. So, somebody who earns 40,000 a year pays 6.2% himself ($2480) and his employer matches it. So, on a total 'base' salary of 40,000, said earner is actually eaning $42,480, and he's paying $4,960 in payroll. That's about 11.6% of his  income, before Medicare is even factored in. After medicare, it's usually over 12%.

Edited by Hotspur Rovinski, 13 February 2005 - 12:53 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#23 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 12:58 PM

Hotspur Rovinski, on Feb 13 2005, 05:35 PM, said:

Quote

And those of you who think social security is not worth saving, I'm curious, do you know any retired people? Any elderly widows? Ask them if their monthly social security check is a scam.

My grandmother is retired. Had she been allowed to invest the same amount of money even conservatively in interest-bearing CDs (again, including employer contribution, which is part of your salary that you never see), she'd be better off now. But, again, while I may oppose the program on ideological grounds, I recognize that it's firmly entrenched and the responsible thing to do is simply to make sure it stays in existence as is. Public opinion isn't on my side, and I realize that's not likely to change in the near future. And even if it was, the transition costs would be too much to bear. [On the flip side, Social Security is a net gain for you if, like in Nonny's case, you're disabled. But for *most* people it's not, at least not according to any projections I've seen vs. even low-risk CD's.].

In sum, there's basically two arguments:
-- Is social security a good idea? Moot point; it's popular and costs too much to scrap. It's here for the long-haul.
-- Is it a good idea to privatize it? I've yet to see an argument that it is.

Delvo—I must admit, I was one of those who thought Social Security was in trouble, because I bought into the conventional wisdom. And when various analyses started showing up on the liberal blogs (Drum, Yselgais, Marshall, etc.), I was initially skeptical. However, I've yet to hear a sound argument for privatization. The program is good until at least 2042 (because, remember: Payroll taxes paid into the system. It's not the SSA's fault that congress squandered it; congress simply has to pay that money back. How they do that isn't Social Security's problem). I wish all of our problems were 37 years away, at worst.

Instead, how about we forget about social security privatization, repeal Bush's tax cuts for the top 5% or so, and try to get the 2005 budget back on track? Making a reasonable effort to balance the budget this year should be something everybody can agree on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That's I think the key point here.  Whatever you think of Social Security on ideological grounds, its actual problems are so modest compared to things like the budget deficit and medicare that insisting we fix it RIGHT NOW is the equivalent of deciding that what your car with two flat tires and a smashed windshield really needs at the moment is an oil change, since you haven't done it in 2000 miles.

Oh, and I heartily recommend that all Republicans here ignore Rovinski's advice and push your representatives to support the privatization of Social Security.  Because you really couldn't hand us a better tool to get rid of your Congressional majorities in 2006.

Edited by MuseZack, 13 February 2005 - 01:00 PM.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#24 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 01:16 PM

Hotspur Rovinski, on Feb 13 2005, 09:35 AM, said:

... Social Security is a net gain for you if, like in Nonny's case, you're disabled....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me offer a little clarification here!  The only net gain was in money, about a fraction of what I would have made as an electronics technician (well, until I got down-sized, of course), and that fraction was given, grudgingly, over a period of ten years, starting nearly ten years after I became disabled.  I had only paid into SSA for a few years when I became disabled, hence the hell of SSI, but more to the point, going on SSI is more of a tragedy than a benefit.  SSI recipients are routinely subjected to abuse by SSA, who get away with it by invoking "due diligence" which apparently means "harass them till they die."  Being on SSI is so horrible that I used to wonder (actually I still do) if case workers get to put notches on their badges for clients driven to suicide.  

As I like to say to people who make snarky comments about how great it must be to park in disabled parking without risking a fine, do you really think the benefit makes up for the pain and all?  The link I posted is an article about yet another way the government has come up with to harass SSI and disability recipients, and retirees are next.  For me, SSA is more of a problem because of the way recipients are treated.  The number crunching seems to be politically motivated anyway.  

Nonny

Edited by Nonny, 13 February 2005 - 01:18 PM.

Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#25 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 01:16 PM

DWF, on Feb 13 2005, 05:41 AM, said:

A couple of years ago the year for the collapse of SS was supposed to have been 2012.


It was used a couple of years ago to try to attack Bush for being uncaring towards the elderly So Bush proposals are going to be attack. Because it's Bush trying to do something therefore it is EVIL.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#26 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 01:20 PM

G1223, on Feb 13 2005, 10:16 AM, said:

Because it's Bush trying to do something therefore it is EVIL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, your words.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#27 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 01:26 PM

G1223, on Feb 13 2005, 01:16 PM, said:

DWF, on Feb 13 2005, 05:41 AM, said:

A couple of years ago the year for the collapse of SS was supposed to have been 2012.


It was used a couple of years ago to try to attack Bush for being uncaring towards the elderly So Bush proposals are going to be attack. Because it's Bush trying to do something therefore it is EVIL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Actually the 2012 date goes back to when Clinton was in office, only recently has it been upgraded to 2052. But in the end the date doesn't matter, no matter when it's supposed to end it's going to happen regardless of who's in ofice, it's more of simple matter of the system not adjusting with times, back when it was concieved it was a good idea, but it's too far behind the times.
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#28 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:23 PM

Excerpt from Clinton's 1999 State of the Union address (emphasis mine):

Quote

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Specifically, I propose that we commit 60% of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years.

And the Democrats applauded wildly. They were for it before they were against it.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#29 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:45 PM

Solar Wind, on Feb 13 2005, 08:23 PM, said:

Excerpt from Clinton's 1999 State of the Union address (emphasis mine):

Quote

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Specifically, I propose that we commit 60% of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years.

And the Democrats applauded wildly. They were for it before they were against it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Quick question: if the Dems were so for it in 1999, as you claim, why didn't it happen?

Or are you saying Dems who were for it before they were against it were stymied by an apparently larger number of Republicans who were against it before they were for it?

Or was it that Dems were applauding the dedication of some of the surplus toward SS part, not the private account part?

Or was it because the President's party always applauds what a Prez says in his State of the Union address? ;) :D

Banapis

#30 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:50 PM

Solar Wind, on Feb 13 2005, 08:23 PM, said:

Excerpt from Clinton's 1999 State of the Union address (emphasis mine):

Quote

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Specifically, I propose that we commit 60% of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years.

And the Democrats applauded wildly. They were for it before they were against it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Apples and oranges.  Clinton wasn't talking about spending a trillion dollars to make private accounts, he was talking about investing a small portion of the SURPLUS (that we used to have) which was a good idea.  But now that we won't see a surplus again in my lifetime...   :angry:

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#31 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:51 PM

Banapis said:

if the Dems were so for it in 1999, as you claim, why didn't it happen?
You mean besides the fact that the budget surplus was only a paper surplus?
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#32 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:55 PM

Balderdash, on Feb 13 2005, 07:50 PM, said:

Apples and oranges.  Clinton wasn't talking about spending a trillion dollars to make private accounts, he was talking about investing a small portion of the SURPLUS (that we used to have) which was a good idea.  But now that we won't see a surplus again in my lifetime...   :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


But Clinton said that investing in private accounts would earn a higher return. What difference should it matter if the money came from the paper surplus instead of the payroll tax?
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#33 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:56 PM

Solar Wind, on Feb 13 2005, 08:51 PM, said:

Banapis said:

if the Dems were so for it in 1999, as you claim, why didn't it happen?
You mean besides the fact that the budget surplus was only a paper surplus?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



   :wacko:

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#34 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:56 PM

LOL what surplus? The surplus that popped up overnight? The surplus that comes from rearranging the payments so you do not see the deficeit?

Basically you cannot have a surplus when the  size of government keeps growing. All Bill did was reduce growth not reverse it.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#35 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 08:07 PM

Solar Wind, on Feb 13 2005, 08:51 PM, said:

Banapis said:

if the Dems were so for it in 1999, as you claim, why didn't it happen?
You mean besides the fact that the budget surplus was only a paper surplus?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, yes, because I don't recall widespread support for the idea at all from Dems in 1999.

But if you're now arguing that Dems liked the idea -- that the support was there -- and then decided the idea was bad without a real "non-paper" surplus, then nothing has changed since we certainly don't have anywhere near a budget surplus right now.   In that case, the Dems would be adhering to exactly the same position, never for it in such circumstances, and entirely moot your earlier "flip-flop" comment.  

Banapis

#36 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 08:07 PM

Quote

G: LOL what surplus? The surplus that popped up overnight? The surplus that comes from rearranging the payments so you do not see the deficeit?

Basically you cannot have a surplus when the size of government keeps growing. All Bill did was reduce growth not reverse it.

I'm curious about this...Can you provide some specifics?
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#37 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 08:25 PM

Banapis, on Feb 13 2005, 08:07 PM, said:

Solar Wind, on Feb 13 2005, 08:51 PM, said:

Banapis said:

if the Dems were so for it in 1999, as you claim, why didn't it happen?
You mean besides the fact that the budget surplus was only a paper surplus?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, yes, because I don't recall widespread support for the idea at all from Dems in 1999.

But if you're now arguing that Dems liked the idea -- that the support was there -- and then decided the idea was bad without a real "non-paper" surplus, then nothing has changed since we certainly don't have anywhere near a budget surplus right now.   In that case, the Dems would be adhering to exactly the same position, never for it in such circumstances, and entirely moot your earlier "flip-flop" comment.  

Banapis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Probably what happened is
1) Social Security reform was a ruse by Clinton to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Or

2) Democrats but not Republicans were in favor of growing the amount of money being poured into Social Security while both parties expressed support for the private accounts.

In any case, the government was diverting payroll taxes from Social Security to pay for other expenses to help create the illusion of a surplus. So in other words, Clinton was giving money the government had diverted from the payroll tax back to Social Security via the private accounts while Bush isn't bothering to obfuscate the accounting so much.

Edited by Solar Wind, 13 February 2005 - 08:45 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#38 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 11:41 PM

Solar Wind, on Feb 14 2005, 12:23 AM, said:

Excerpt from Clinton's 1999 State of the Union address (emphasis mine):

Quote

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Specifically, I propose that we commit 60% of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years.

And the Democrats applauded wildly. They were for it before they were against it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


What a load of crap.  Clinton was talking about investing a chunk of the Social Security trust itself into the market, not carving out individual private accounts.  That's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and plutonium.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#39 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 14 February 2005 - 12:11 AM

Quote

What a load of crap. Clinton was talking about investing a chunk of the Social Security trust itself into the market, not carving out individual private accounts. That's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and plutonium.

:lol: You said plutonium, lol  :lol:
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#40 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 14 February 2005 - 02:19 AM

As a surly twenty-something . . . SS makes me hopping mad.  If the damn politicians--on ALL sides would just keep their grubby little hands off of Social Security and run it like a retirement program rather than a political wedge and wealth-redistribution scheme--we'd all be a lot better off and there'd be no problems at all.

To hell with this privatization crap!

I mean, it *sounds* great.  I'd love to be able to lower my taxes to the gov't by 6% and get an employer-matched 401k out of the deal (assuming a complete dismantling of SS).  For most people, setting aside a mere 8% of their income for retirement will make them pretty well off for retirement. (even with low-risk low-yield investments).

Now, if SS really worked the way it says it does, 12 percent of everyone's income (below $90,000) gets tossed into the fund and "invested" in treasury securities (see also: low interest loan to the government).  Let's do a little bit of math to highlight how wrong this little idea is:

-I'll assume I make an average salary of $50,000 a year for 35 years.  This is a little low, I surely hope my average salary over my working life is much better, but usually incomes increase over time and I'm not accounting for that to make the math easier--so we'll low-ball it.

-6% of that, $3,000 per year, comes from my paycheck and my employer tosses in an additional $3,000.  So that's $6,000 a year.

-Bonds and other treasury securities usually have returns around 4%

-My trusty financial calculator tells me that works out to $449,933.73

-If I start collecting benefits right away, and live another 30 years, that gives me a yearly income of $25,887.36 from SS.  Coupled with some kind of pension from my employer and other retirement accounts (401k, IRA, other savings) . . .and I'm in pretty good shape.

The politicians could've left well enough alone and everything would be fine.  Truth is, I won't collect anywhere near $25k/year.  Also, if I die earlier, the remaining money goes "poof" right back to the government (no leaving it as an inheritance to my children, etc.) What I really will collect from SS depends on a zillion little factors and ends up having very little to do with what I actually put in over the course of my working life--because politicians lie and meddle with things.

When SS starts paying out more than it takes in, the difference will either come from taxes now, or government debt (even more taxes later!).

SS can be fixed quickly, and painlessly by getting rid of the cap--making people pay 6% on EVERYTHING they make, not just the first $90,000 or even just raising it some (say to $300,000).  But this would mean more taxes for the rich, and politicians hate that (because, well, they're usually rich themselves and have lots of rich friends.)

So we should privatize SS!  The investment banks will be chomping at the bit to service these accounts (imagine the fee revenue for them!) . . . worsening the shortfall problem . . . which means more taxes now or more government debt (again, more taxes later!).

So, like bottled water, and those nice folks in Nigeria who keep wanting to give me millions, SS is yet another scam.  It's a sword politicans of every flavor like to rattle when they want attention, and tweak and meddle with to show how compassionate they are while they gleefully swindle us out of our money.  And we re-elect the bastards because of what a great job they're doing spending our trillions of taxes and retirement savings.

-Nick



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Senate, Social Security, Reform, Democrat, Sen. Tom Carper D-Del

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users