Well if by fixing he means to gut the benefits or privatize them
FORGET IT.  Yes I know he has not said anything specific...yet.
But as is pointed out here , SS does not need fixing.

Unlike Robert Rubin's Citigroup,
Social Security is solidly funded
long into the future. According
to the latest report from the
Congressional Budget Office
(pdf), it can pay all promised
benefits through the year 2049,
with no changes whatsoever. Even
after that date it will always be
able to pay benefits that are far
higher than what current retirees
receive.

So, the claim that Social
Security is going broke is
inaccurate, or in less polite
circles, a lie. Workers in their
40s 50s, and 60s have already
paid for their Social Security
benefits.

Unless the Government or some investors breaks
it on purpose.

Many people, most notably investment
banker and Concord Coalition founder
Peter Peterson, have questioned the
solvency of Social Security based on
the fact that its trust fund is held
in US government bonds. Peterson and
others derisively refer to these bonds
as "IOUs".

Of course all bonds can be called
IOUs, but US government bonds are
considered the safest asset in the
world. Peterson and his followers
apparently want the government to
default on the bonds held by the
Social Security trust fund.

There is no reason that these bonds
cannot be paid back, but if there is a
serious push to default on the bonds
held by the trust fund, then we should
insist that Peterson and other wealthy
people who hold government bonds also
share in the pain from default.
Instead of having a full default on
the trust fund bonds and full payment
on the bonds held by Peterson, maybe
we should make everyone take a 15%
haircut, getting back 85% of the value
of their bonds.

And the idea of putting any of the SS funds into private
investment is worse than ludicrous.

With Medicare, the only problem there is the outrageous
prices being charged by the for profit medical community.
Using someone else's life and health to get rich is just
plane sick.

Every other wealthy country in the
world has managed to contain its
healthcare costs and provide care to
its population that is as good or
better than what people in the US
receive. If it were not for the
political power of the pharmaceutical,
insurance and doctors' lobbies, we
would have fixed healthcare long ago.
If Congress cannot stand up to these
special interest groups, then why not
just let retirees take advantage of
the healthcare systems in countries
with less corrupt political systems.

The latest round of attacks on Social
Security and Medicare are especially
pernicious because they come at a time
when the baby boom cohorts have just
seen much of their wealth disappear
due to the collapse of the housing
bubble and the stock market plunge.
Tens of millions of baby boomers who
thought they were well-prepared for
retirement two years ago, now find
themselves with little or no home
equity and very little left in their
retirement funds. As a result, they
will be almost totally dependent on
Social Security and Medicare.

The attacks are made even worse by the
fact that the attackers, people like
Robert Rubin and Peter Peterson,
promoted policies that led to this
collapse and personally profited to
the tune of tens or even hundreds of
millions of dollars. In other words,
after pushing the economy into a
severe recession and destroying the
life's savings of tens of millions of
working families, the Wall Street crew
now wants to take away their Social
Security and Medicare. This can almost
make killing your parents look like a
petty offence.
 

Yep..some real sweat hearts to be taking advise from.

C

Sam Smith has some of the best ideas I have read right
here.

- Reduce credit card interest.
As one politician once put it,
"I'd frankly like to see credit
cards rates down. I believe
that would help stimulate the
consumer and get consumer
confidence moving again.''
Another politician responded by
offering a bill in the Senate
to cap credit card interest at
14%. The Senate voted for it
74-19. The first politician was
that radical president, George
Bush, in 1991. The other
politician was that well known
progressive, Alfonze D'Amato.
Why are Obama and the Democrats
more conservative than Daddy
Bush and D'Amato?

- Start a movement to
nationalize banks. Progressives
led by Robert LaFollette did
this in the 1930s, giving FDR
cover for his more moderate
solutions. Today, all the
political pressure is coming
from Wall Street, which tilts
policies in that direction.

- All measures must put the
interest of the ordinary
citizen first. Neither the GOP
nor the Democrats are doing
that.

- De-emphasize tax cuts. They
are far less effective than
many think.

- Emphasize programs that will
cheer people up and where they
can see things changing for the
better. Among the Wall Street
bailout scam's many faults was
that no one could tell what was
happening as a result. Good
economies need optimism.

- Use revenue sharing. It's a
quick way to get money down to
the states and cities and to
the people who live there.
Sure, some of it will get
corrupted but far less than is
already happening with the
phony stimulus packages. The
upside is that citizens have a
better idea of what is being
done on their behalf and have
some say in how it is done.

- Fund public works project
that have large spin-off
benefits and which will be
heavy in blue collar
employment. These would include
new mass transit service and a
massive growth of America's
rail system. It would
deemphasize fixing up existing
systems because the spin off
benefits are far less.

- Institute a shared equity
program for homeowners in
distress under which the
federal government buys a
portion of the mortgage,
renegotiates interest rates
with the lenders and then gets
its part of the equity back
when the house is sold. A
similar program could be used
for building new homes.

- Decentralize decisions and
negotiations on foreclosures
and real estate interest rates,
using local courts and similar
bodies as was done in the
1930s.

- Give the government preferred
stock in companies it aids. At
one point in the New Deal, the
Reconstruction Finance
Corporation owned bank shares
that would be worth at least
$20 billion today.

Too bad none of these things will be considered by anyone
in Washington.

C

Bush wants the rest of the TARP money.  Congress should not give
him spit. Man talk about nerve.  The first part just got pissed away
by those clowns and flim-flam artists on Wall Street already.

Tell Bush to take a hike.

C

Like the man said, follow the money....


C