OK, so yeah I'm not sure that you read your posts, but now I wonder if you even read the posts you are so quick to criticize. The post you link to saysabout lieberman:
No, NYT Reporter, the problem is this:

In recent weeks, he has angered Democratic activists nationwide for expressing a willingness to work with President Bush to change Social Security. Critics say that is just his latest act of disloyalty to the party. He already had supported the war in Iraq and Mr. Bush's cabinet choices - and received a televised presidential smooch at the State of the Union address.

i.e., the fact that crazy joe has a pattern is the problem, not his views on social security.

AMAZING that you conservatives take whatever a conservative hack like Bob Novak says as TRUTH without looking it up.

I actually looked it up. Novak got his facts completely wrong. Howard Dean said NO SUCH THING.

What Dean said was, if Social Security were left alone for 30 years, its benefits would be reduced to 80 percent of what it is now.

BIG Difference.

More here: http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/24/421d84959299b?in_archive=1

Brad, that's a crisis. 80% in just 30 years, adjusted for inflation, is a HUGE crisis. Sorry that the media needs to spell it out for you for you to understand.

Karol...I guess I'm going to have to explain this better.

Dean = if Social Security were left alone for 30 years, its benefits would be reduced to 80 percent of what it is now

TRANSLATION: the Social Security administration will be able to pay 80% of the benfits. I.e., a decline of 20%

That's hardly a crisis. And this forecast is based on the most pessimistic projections. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the SSA will be able to pay 100% of benefits until 2053.

"That's hardly a crisis."

You try taking away that money know and old people will rise out of their graves to kill you.

What exactly is a crisis, for you brad?

If i do not get 100 percent of the money that i should get out of social security, then there IS a problem, crisis, world disaster, or what ever you like to call it.

Crisis v. problem - seems more of a matter of semantics - I think there's a concern from the left that Leiberman is going to cave on private accounts when (1) he really won't have to and (2) the majority of folk aren't all that enthused by the accounts anyway - frankly, i'd love to see him work with the republicans to fund the system fully (without dismantling it - the rub) - screw the KOSites

Cube,
A decade ago the Social Security trustees forecast that the trust fund would be exhausted in 2029. Today they've moved the date out to 2042.

That's just another way of saying that these are largely inaccurate forecasts.

if you use slightly less pessimistic economic projections than these guys do — something a lot of economists think we should — it's good until at least 2060 or 2070.

In other words, Social Security is in good shape for at least 40 years and maybe more like 60 or 70 years. That's hardly a crisis.

But here's the other part of this equation: the privatization scheme George Bush wants you to buy into will not save social security. They're going to have to borrow trillions just to cover the transition costs--and that will increase the deficit, putting on national economy on less secure footing than it already is. And Bush is assuming the returns on stocks will actually be higher than they will on Treasury Bonds. There's no guarantee of that.

A 20% cut in benefits is not a crisis, for Brad and the rest of his 401(k) having friends.

The people on the low end of the economic spectrum, who are counting on SS for a significant portion of their retirement, if not all of it, will be screwed. SS provides poverty protection, not retirement income.

Brad doesn't care. He'll be fine.

Typical Democrats. Keep screwing the poor over and over and over, and tell them the Republicans did it.

The Social Security system could probably stand some updating---and the GOP are the worst possible choice to put in charge of it.

This is the party that has turned a large surplus into a crippling deficit none once but TWICE during my lifetime.

When the Republicans start balancing the budget and stop giving out corporate welfare like candy, then I'll listen to what they have to say about fixing Social Security. Until then, they can bite me.

The debate isn't about whether things need to be changed with SS. It is about whether we need to make a revolutionary change (we don't) or whether it needs to be made RIGHTNOW (it doesn't).

When the people who have always hated the socialist implications of social security start telling you that they want to change it for the better, zip up your pockets and barricade the doors.

Sean,
By supporting Bush's Social Security privatization, YOU'RE the one who wants to screw the poor. Typical Republicans. When's the last time a Republican supported legislation that actually helped the lower classes?

"Ownership Society," my ass.

Actually--

If one was to save 10 percent of one's paycheck, every week--which is entirely possible if a person lives within their means--then Social Security, in general, would be unnecessary. However, since we have encouraged dependency on the government we must now honor that. It is our duty to make sure that Social Security is solvent for people who will reach retirement age over the next few decades, and it boggles my mind that the current Democratic leadership can't admit the obvious problem with the convergence of 1) longer lifespans and 2) an unchanged retirement age.

Dorian,
The current Democratic leadership respects the long term problem of Social Security and wants to fix it. However, the Republicans want to completely dismantle Social Security: Bush wants to do away with the "encouraged dependency" which you cite--it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who would dishonor this 75 year legacy.

Remember, Social Security was never intended to be the sole retirement savings plan for all Americans It was always, and still is, meant to be an insurance policy IN ADDITION TO other retirement savings. No one is stopping you from saving money for your retirement in other ways--but for the vast majority of Americans who don't have much income or ability to invest, Social Security remains their safety net. Bush wants to take that safety net away entirely and say, "You're on your own."

Brad--

That's absurd.

Nobody--including the president--is suggesting that we abandon Social Security. It's a promise we made and we have to honor it. At the same time, it is, undoubtedly, a good thing to encourage economic independence with partial privatization. Like it or not, it is virtually the sole source of fiscal survival for many retirees, and that is totally unacceptable. A government--even a good one, like ours--can't be put in a position to hold its people financially hostage.