Social Security reform is, for all intents and purposes, dead right now. With the SCOTUS nominations at hand, the summer recess right around the corner, and a legislative agenda that is bogged down with numerous other items, those in favor of SS reform (yours truly included) will just have to regroup and keep hope alive:
Six months after Republicans began selling Social Security reform, they all but acknowledge that wide-scale changes won’t happen this year. But knowing they must do something, they are pushing a narrower Social Security proposal in the House.
President Bush continues to campaign for comprehensive reform of the system, but Democrats oppose what they call privatization. Congressional Republican leaders realize the public expects action after hearing about the issue for months.
“We’ve told everyone the house is on fire. It’s time to offer them a fire hose or a bucket or maybe a glass of water, depending on what the Senate can pass,” said Rep. Adam H. Putnam, Florida Republican.
Social Security reform appears to be, for now, so dead that it isn’t even making the news right now. Google news offers up a few stories, but one can assume only because they involve Karl Rove stumping for reform. Rove is always a hot topic in the press, but much more so within the current Plame/Rove firestorm.
Further imperiling Social Security, perversely enough, are the imminent Supreme Court fights. There is more than anecdotal evidence that if the social conservative wing of the GOP is not placated by the President’s picks, and not given the candidate they desire, Social Security reform by this administration will be all but dead. A base that has given their blood, sweat, and tears to support, fund, and elect this President and many of the newer members of Congress would be so demoralized by the appointment of a ‘moderate’ Justice or Justices that it is simply absurd to expect them to support this administration in future legislative endeavors. IN fact, it may not be an exaggeration to see a dramatic loss in the mid-term elections by numerous Republican candidates.
With that in mind, it is interesting to revisit who is in favor of Social Security reform in general and privatization in specific. If the numbers referred to by Adam in this piece in Red State are accurate, the heavier levels of support reside within the youth of America:
Recent polls indicate that young people are embracing President Bush’s proposal for private investment accounts as a means to fix Social Security.
In a February poll, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that 66 percent of Americans between ages 18 and 29 support privatizing a portion of Social Security taxes, up from 64 percent in December.
There seems to be some debate over the accuracy of those numbers, and the Mystery Pollster has more on polling and Social Security awareness.
So, here we are. It appears that for now, Democrats have won the fight, if only temporarily, on the issue of social security reform. Much still hangs in the balance, and it seems as though the fate of social security reform lies with issues wholly unrelated. These include the SCOTUS nominees, the waning popularity of the President, the approval numbers related to the war in Iraq, and the general attitude towards this administration and the current Congress, which as of late appearsto be pretty sour.
We shall see.
metalgrid
I’m just curious what the Democrats are holding out for on this issue? Clinton was for SS reform but never got a chance to push it through. Bush is for it, but it doesn’t seem like he’ll get it through either. Are the dems just holding out so that they can push it as their thing when they eventually come back into power?
As for the SCOTUS nominee, I wouldn’t hold my breath for a limited government, topple the new deal type of nominee if a social con is appointed. Do the social cons support SS reform at all, or is that just the rest of the republicans?
Rick
Of course any resistance to reforming Social Security is only a temporary victory because the inexorable mathmatics and demographics of the current system will force reform, like it or not.
The longer we wait, the more drastic will be the reform,and the worse it’ll be for youngsters like John Cole. Should I live long enough, I’ll “get mine” around 2020, though.
Good luck to all you others; but please, work so much harder. I’m, well, banking on you.
Cordially…
Stormy70
I am not counting on Social Security, and neither is anyone my age. We’re not stupid, we know the Boomers will suck up all the money, all the while spending their precious dollars on face lifts and botox injections. Bitter much? Yes.
Rick
Stormy,
I promise to limit my profligacies to early-bird specials, and replacing the turn-signal lights I’ve burned out by leaving them on for several hundred miles, or hours.
Oh, then there’ll be the postage for sternly worded letters to editors and legislators demanding more, more, more, cuz I’m old and special.
Cordially…
Anderson
How are y’all using that word “reform”?
What “reform” proposal did Bush ever advance?
I must’ve missed that major news story.
JG
Reform sounds nice but all I’ve heard from Bush is the beginnings of a phase out. As long as a phase out is a part of the plan the dems won’t talk. I won’t be eligible for 30 years. Thats when its projected to be only paying out 80% of promised benefits. I’ve read that raising the limit past the current $98,000 dollar point might help out some.
Doug
If we’d put the money we borrowed to spend on Iraq into Social Security instead, how much would that have helped? What’s the tab in Iraq up to $200 – $300 billion? What would that investment look like over the years if it was managed by a government fund manager for investment in the stock market?
That’s my recommendation. Go back in time, prevent the colossal waste of money that is Iraq, and put the money in the stock market. Or, better yet, pay down the federal debt which is a more pressing and comprehensive problem. I predict the national debt is going to screw GenX much, much harder than reduction in Social Security benefits would.
Tim F
JG means raising the income rate cap of course. Modest rate-cap raises and very modest (single-digit) benefit cuts would keept he system solvent for so long that projections are pointless.
That’s more or less the Democratic proposal. Keep the Social Security we have and make the virtually-insignificant adjustments needed to keep on going until the demographic bulge has passed.
The Republican ‘proposals’ basically want to get rid of Social Security and replace it with something else. Won’t fly, and the polling numbers on those proposals suggest that the Democrats would be suicidally stupid not to hold out for what we have.
Republicans are free to push that phase-out agenda if that sort of thing tingles their sphincter. It’s their funeral.
Marcus Wellby
We’re not stupid, we know the Boomers will suck up all the money, all the while spending their precious dollars on face lifts and botox injections. Bitter much? Yes.
Stormy, do you actualy know ANY Boomers getting face lifts and Botox injections? Or do you live in a fantasy world built entirely of Rush Limbaugh talking points?
Tim F
do you actualy know ANY Boomers getting face lifts and Botox injections?
Speaking as somebody who has made similar comments in the past, you’re way out on a limb here Marcus. I don’t think I know an exceptional number of boomers and the answer is an emphatic YES.
p.lukasiak
Of course any resistance to reforming Social Security is only a temporary victory because the inexorable mathmatics and demographics of the current system will force reform, like it or not.
actually, this is not true. The fact is that if we do nothing at all, by the time the Social Security Trust Fund runs out of assets, we will have been spending 6.2% of GDP on Social Security for close to a decade. (Right now, we are spending about 4.2 percent….the change in percentage of GDP spent on Social Security starts around 2014, and increases by about 0.1% of GDP per year until percentage of GDP reaches a plateau of about 6.2% around 2034.)
So, as long as the US continues to meet its obligations under current law, by 2042 the necessary adjustments would have been made in the US economy to allow the nation to continue to spend 6.2% of GDP indefinitely — all we would have to do to “fix” social security is to convert the same level of general revenue that had been used for nearly a decade to pay off the bonds held by the Trust into a direct subsidy of Social Security from general revenue.
We don’t need changes in Social Security — what we need are and end to Bush’s massive deficits, and a return to fiscal responsibility — that means that the American people need to be confronted with a choice — significant reductions in spending from General Revenue, or significant increases in funds going into General Revenue (ie higher taxes.)
If Bush wasn’t such an absolute craven jerk, that is what he would be spending his political capital on. Social Security is just fine — its the rest of the budget that is completely out of whack.
Stormy70
I live in Grapevine, Texas, next door to Dallas, the plastic surgery capital of the world. I worked in the Designer department of a major retail store, and the ladies who were getting Social Security still managed to get all kinds of work done. And, yes, they were on Social Security.
Why does every leftist assume everyone listens to Limbaugh? My talking points are my own. Do I go around accusing all you guys of using Kos talking points? No, I do not.
Rick and ppqaz – You guys are too cool for plastic surgery, so you will be excused from my Gen X bitterness. Thank you, that is all.
Marcus Wellby
I live in Grapevine, Texas, next door to Dallas, the plastic surgery capital of the world. I worked in the Designer department of a major retail store, and the ladies who were getting Social Security still managed to get all kinds of work done. And, yes, they were on Social Security.
Why does every leftist assume everyone listens to Limbaugh?
Well, the boomers I know travel in VERY different circles and aren’t really hip to the whole Botox scene. If you’ve paid into the system your entire life, I could care less what you do with the money. Blow it all on lottery tickets for all I care. Just because you, and I, do not enjoy paying SS, does not mean someone who has paid for their entire working life is not entitled to spend that money on whatever they want.
First, I am not a leftist by any means. Second, I said it was a Rush Limbaugh talking point because I heard him saying something just like it on numerous occasions.
Tim F
I’m missing the argument here. Is Stormy arguing that the SS payout is too much, to the point that pensioners can afford botox? Or is it that boomers have misplaced priorities that make them less deserving of SS?
I’d make the argument that pensioners getting plastic surgery are either a) living off of dividend-paying investments in addition to Social Security, b) receiving some seriously compromised plastic surgery, or c) taking medicaid payouts that the state of Texas maybe should look into.
p.lukasiak
Why does every leftist assume everyone listens to Limbaugh? My talking points are my own.
Leftist don’t assume that you listen to Limbaugh. They assume that you either listen to Limbaugh, or read/listen to those outlets that adopt and repeat Limbaugh’s talking points.
And given the “quality” of your discourse, its tough to believe that you come up with your own ideas, insofar as they are so consistent with the crap that Limbaugh spouts. Just because you get your nonsense from Limbaugh second- or third-hand, doesn’t mean its not Limbaugh’s nonsense you are spouting.
neil
So wait a second. You’re saying that when Bush came forward with breathless talk of a looming crisis that puts our children in danger and must be taken care of immediately with an expensive and risky government initiative that would change the direction of the policy America has followed for the last 50 years… people didn’t believe him?
I wonder why?
Stormy70
p.luk – you of all people should not mention talking points, or “Quality” of discourse, considering your history of conspiracy theories.
SS will not be there for me, even though I put money into the same system as all those Boomers. Once again, the younger generations will be screwed, if we are not allowed the use of our own money. FDR pulled a communist fast one on my generation, and I am bitter. If this went on in the private sector, you would be screaming “Ponzi”, and calling the SEC.
Tim F
That qualifies as a conspiracy theory. On what do you base that other than the “word” of president Bush?
JG
FDR screwed people 80 yrs into the future? Are you serious? How about Reagan increasing the tax to have extra money to pay for the boomers in 2018 and now Bush saying the extra money accumulated since then doesn’t exist? Worthless IOUs. Then he called them a safe investment in your private account. Huh?
The people who are in charge want SS gone and they are using a form of misdirection to get you to believe that ss will someday be bankrupt. It won’t. They’re using funny math and the belief that since the people opposing them are in your eyes the enemy they don’t have to try real hard to convince you of their case. You’ll do and believe anything because they know you would die before siding with a liberal. They can have any platform they want, no matter how extreme, all they have to do is paint it as the opposite of what liberals want. They have an ss plan, the details are irrelevant all you need to know is that the dems are against it so it must be good for the country since we know dems are just tax and spend communists who want to take your hard earned cash and give it to lazy, city folk who feel entitled.
Sojourner
JG, now don’t go confusing Stormy with facts.
Geek, Esq.
The issue quite simply is one of trust. We don’t believe for a second that Bush, Rove, DeLay & Co. have any interest in saving Social Security.
Rather, we believe that the goal is not to save it or reform it, but to phase it out of existence.
It’ll take a Democratic president to fix it.
Tim F
I’ll save Stormy the time and answer for her. There exists no evidence that Social Security won’t “be there for her” unless BUsh succeeds in destroying it with his phase-out scheme. I can appreciate talking points when they actually constitute a point, but that’s just a bit of unsubstantiated throat-clearing.
ARROW
“How about Reagan increasing the tax to have extra money to pay for the boomers in 2018 and now Bush saying the extra money accumulated since then doesn’t exist?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)
“In each year since 1982, OASDI tax receipts, interest payments and other income have exceeded benefit payments and other expenditures, most recently (in 2004) by more than $150 billion. As the “baby boomers” move out of the work force and into retirement, however, it is anticipated that expenses will come to exceed Social Security tax revenues, if there are no changes in current law concerning taxes, benefits, and the retirement age.”
“According to most projections, the Social Security trust fund will begin drawing on its Treasury Notes toward the end of the next decade (around 2018 or 2019), at which time the repayment of these notes will have to be financed from the general fund. At some time thereafter, variously estimated as 2042 (by the Social Security Administration) or 2052 (by the Congressional Budget Office), the Social Security Trust Fund will have exhausted the claim on general revenues that had been built up during the years of surplus. At that point, current Social Security payroll tax receipts would be sufficient to fund 73 or 78 percent of the promised benefits, according to the two respective projections. The libertarian Cato Institute estimates that the annual shortfall will reach almost $700 billion in today’s dollars by 2075.”
I don’t think Bush said the extra taxes don’t exist. They exist in the form of Treasury Notes, and those extra taxes (Treasury Notes) will all be cashed in by 2042. Unless taxes are increased to cover the shortfall, benefits will be reduced.
Stormy70
None of you are entitled to my money that I earn, period. Why can’t I put my money in my own savings account, where it will grow, instead of being cut when I retire in 40 years. And I will not vote for anyone calling for a tax increase so it can fund the Boomer Generation’s fun-filled retirement. I hope to be rich in the future, so I definitely don’t want to share it with boomers who want to suck up all the benefits. Up yours, Gramps! Buy your own Viagra. At least we got the HSAs through in that boondoggle of a prescription bill. HSAs are the future of health insurance.
ARROW
I would vote for phasing it out of existence, but put the probability of that happening is remote at best.
Social Security is a wealth transfer system, based a regressive taxing scheme. Somebody earning $9 million a year pays the same amount of tax as someone earning $90,000. If you die before you receive what you paid in, it’s gone!
It makes more sense to implement retirement savings programs with a safety net for those people that NEED the transfer payment (with the taxes to fund it as part of the general taxing scheme). Maybe a government sponsored housing setup where life would not be wonderful but the old people that need the help wouldn’t be on the streets eating out of garbage cans.
JG
He said they SS surplus doesn’t exist. Its just worthless IOUs.
No they don’t. Someone earning $9 million a year is only taxed on the first $98000. Someone making $90000 is taxed on their entire yearly salary.
Nothing will be cut in 40 years. People are trying to get you to believe that so you will support their plan to cut it now.
Raising the tax ceiling above $98000 only affects people making over $98000. If doing so would fix the problem would you vote it down?
ppgaz
I wouldn’t believe it if I didn’t see it. We’ve had war on queers. Now we have war on older people?
You know what, Republicans? Fuck you. I’ve been paying my taxes for 40 years and managed to build up a nest egg without any government help, starting from ten and one half years ago with nothing but the clothes I could stuff into a broken down pickup truck after a profound family disaster. My SS benefit, should I work 9 more years, will barely support one person, let alone two, but I’m not complaining. Know why? Because my mother, widowed at an early age, managed a dignified lifestyle without having to ask her family for money, after being widowed at a young age and left with almost nothing but her Social Security check. She lived, and lives today, on that benefit with frugality and discipline, a decent lifestyle without being a burden to her children.
Social Security wouldn’t be in trouble down the road, after I am no longer here to collect benfits, except for that fact that your worthless government is spending like a crackhead and setting the stage for a raid on the Social Security trust fund.
I don’t know what “plan” you have for “reform” but after all the posturing by this cowardly and spineless president, I still haven’t seen one from him. Just posturing and a nothing-but-smiles roadshow that took public approval of his “scheme” – whatever the hell it is — from low to lower to lowest in just 180 days. Glib talk about “investments” from an administration that has managed to keep the stock indexes at or below the levels they were handed in 2000 for almost five frigging years. Considerably below, if adjusted for inflation.
Cut the crap and stop pissing on our legs and telling us it’s raining. You have no plan, and you apparently have no shame.
ARROW
“None of you are entitled to my money that I earn, period.”
That may be true, but the federal government can TAKE your money. Those people that are in favor of Social security just don’t get IT. If you don’t make a fair amount of income during your life time, then your SS benefits will be very small in the scheme of things. And if you do make a fair amount of income, it is likely you won’t need SS benefits. Everybody is included in the system so that they (the socialist politicians that think SS is good) can get more people vested in the process. Unfortunately, most of these people do not know that they are being USED (hosed if you will).
The Republicans are afraid to take this issue straight on with the facts. And the Democrats think it is good to have this socialism, where we can all be equally hosed. What a mess!
ppgaz
Oh, that’s brilliant analysis, ARROW. Seventy years and several cycles of pay-get, it’s a program that has been called the “third rail” of politics. Why is that? Because people DON’T GET IT? Jesus. Where do you come up with such horsepuckey?
Try this, morons: Have President Russet (aka Mister Potatohead) go on tv and announce that he is ending Social Security by executive order. Then sit back and watch the march on Washington and the violent overthrow of this spineless government. YOU don’t get it.
And right here in the middle of a day when the Blogmaster has decried the constant attack mode of the right, we have people here attacking their own parents.
“Reform” program is DOA? Blame the greedy old people and their botox injections. War support in the toilet? Blame the people who ask valid questions about why nothing about it has turned out as advertised. Well into second term and the bloom is off the rose? Blame the previous administration.
And you buttheads have the nerve to sit here and say Democrats have no ideas? You’re the ones with no goddam ideas.
JG
I think you’re being blinded by your belief that everything enacted by democrats is part of a socialists agenda.
ARROW
“No they don’t. Someone earning $9 million a year is only taxed on the first $98000.”
The 2005 maximum for FICA is $90,000. Where are you getting your $98,000 number??
“He said they SS surplus doesn’t exist. Its just worthless IOUs.”
Where are you getting this info? Do you have a quote/link?
If he did say this, maybe it was in reference to the fact that the U.S. government no longer has the excess FICA taxes (the actual cash was spent on general budget items in the year it was received, and Treasury Notes (IOUs) were put in the Social Security “Trust Fund”). The cash to pay off the Treasury Notes (IOUs) held by the “Trust Fund” will have to come from general funds or more debt funding (float some more Tresury Notes).
ARROW
ppgaz:
Man, don’t have a coronary! Take a breath.
As I said in my last post, it isn’t going to be eliminated. The policians don’t have the balls to talk straight, for the very reason you post. The people, that totally understand the system, will march on Washington.
Reminds me of a bunch of sheep. The one in front says it’s good, so it’s good. Social Security… the name sounds good doesn’t it? Retirement bliss. For my money, you are being led down the road that you think will be wonderful, and if SS is all you have, it will be total shit. TOTAL SHIT!
So rather than try to do something that might make it better, let’s just head right on down the road, with our head up the sheep’s ass in front of us. We’ll just have the sheppard collect some more taxes. Now that’s a plan!
ARROW
“No they don’t. Someone earning $9 million a year is only taxed on the first $98000.”
The 2005 maximum for FICA is $90,000. Where are you getting your $98,000 number??
“He said they SS surplus doesn’t exist. Its just worthless IOUs.”
Where are you getting this info? Do you have a quote/link?
If he did say this, maybe it was in reference to the fact that the U.S. government no longer has the excess FICA taxes (the actual cash was spent on general budget items in the year it was received, and Treasury Notes (IOUs) were put in the Social Security “Trust Fund”). The cash to pay off the Treasury Notes (IOUs) held by the “Trust Fund” will have to come from general funds or more debt funding (float some more Tresury Notes).
ppgaz:
Man, don’t have a coronary! Take a breath.
As I said in my last post, it isn’t going to be eliminated. The policians don’t have the balls to talk straight, for the very reason you post. The people, that totally understand the system, will march on Washington.
Reminds me of a bunch of sheep. The one in front says it’s good, so it’s good. Social Security… the name sounds good doesn’t it? Retirement bliss. For my money, you are being led down the road that you think will be wonderful, and if SS is all you have, it will be total shit. TOTAL SHIT!
So rather than try to do something that might make it better, let’s just head right on down the road, with our head up the sheep’s ass in front of us. We’ll just have the sheppard collect some more taxes. Now that’s a plan!
Sojourner
ppgaz:
Don’t waste your breath on people like Stormy and ARROW. They don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves. Me, me, me. They don’t care about all of the people who kept a roof over their heads because of SS. They don’t care about the number of elderly people who lived below the poverty level before SS. Fuck them, don’t take MY money. Selfish bastards. And they’re too stupid or arrogant to understand that shit happens and one day they may find themselves in need of some help.
And these same people are the first to pat themselves on the back about their superior morality. Absolutely shameful. The stereotypical selfish American. No wonder these same people fall all over themselves to support this administration.
Sojourner
I don’t know ANYBODY who thinks that SS will provide a wonderful retirement. Unlike you, the people I know understand completely that SS may be all they have after Enron eats up their pensions and 401k’s or United cuts their pensions by 60%, which is devestating for flight attendants and mechanics who don’t get paid big bucks to start with. They understand that SS is there for families who lose their primary bread winner.
Too bad you don’t get that.
ARROW
“Fuck them, don’t take MY money. Selfish bastards. And they’re too stupid or arrogant to understand that shit happens and one day they may find themselves in need of some help.”
Where is it written that I have to pay for my brother’s misfortunes? Where is that written…the communist manifesto, maybe.
Shit does happen. So why not take care of the people that it happens to, instead of assuming it will happen to EVERYONE? Why not expect people to take care of themselves, instead of feeding them the lie called SOCIAL SECURITY and giving the false sense of security they will never have unless they do it for themselves.
JG
Of course they don’t have the taxes laying around. By law the excess revenue was invested in US Treasury Bonds, thats what’s in the trust fund. US Treasury Bonds that the president can’t say are only valid if the government decides to honor them. Just IOUs. I doubt the countries that own trillions of our debt are happy to hear that.
Still doesn’t explain why he mentions in his speech that you can transfer the investment in your private accounts to bonds if you want more security (ignoring that the rate of return on bonds is lower than the nescessary 3+% you need to maintain in your private account to offset the clawback).
What is the plan of the crowd in favor of phase out, for dealing with all the old starving people? Even if we lived in conservative utopia and everyone was a hard working God fearing American some people aren’t going to succeed. What happens to them? Seriously what is the plan?
JG
There was supposed to be a link at the top of my previous post.
Sojourner
The Bible for one in the event that you’re one of those right-wing Christians. And whether you like it or not, it’s a part of our American heritage. If you don’t believe that, take ppgaz up on his challenge: try to kill SS off and see what kind of response you get.
W.B. Reeves
If anyone wants to know why the the assault on social security has stalled they need look no further than some of the comments here. The issue isn’t the solvency of SS. The issue is Communism and Socialism! Amazing. People trying to claim that they’re for “reforming” the system while denouncing it, root and branch, in sterile, ideological invective. This is the primary reason that the phase out crowd has no credibility on the issue. People tend to distrust folks who talk out of both sides of their mouths.
The fact is that the majority of people in this country like the idea of a pension system that is guaranteed by the government, just like folks in Canada and western Europe. Ranting about Socialism and tagging FDR as a Communist isn’t likely to change their minds. Nor is insulting them for their opinions on the issue.
Does anyone here really believe that a reasonably well informed person could be unaware of the Prez’s “worthless IOU’s” meme? After all, he did stage a photo-op clutching a treasury note for the specific purpose of dramatizing that claim.
The hoary redistribution of wealth argument is equally nonsensical. The same claim could be made against all tax schemes with the same degree of validity. In truth, that ideological obsession is precisely what underlies a great deal of the anti-tax activism on the right. Of course, if one really buys into this line of thought one would have to oppose government on principle, since the power to tax is an essential power of all governance.
Rick
…try to kill SS off and see what kind of response you get.
No need to try: it’s guaranteed to whither without reform. Only hate-blinded ideologues fail to acknowledge it.
Cordially…
ppgaz
You don’t want to live in a country where you have some responsibility to your brother, and he to you? Go live in Mexico. Over there, if you are down on your luck, the government will sit by while you sneak over the border, get work in the US, and send money back to your family in Mexico to prop up their economy. Mexico. That’s what you get when you have some people who are getting theirs, while a large number of people are — literally — disposable. Hasta la vista, asshole.
Sojourner
And those who are smart enough to know that SS will pay 100% until sometime around 2042 when the benefits drop to 80%. That’s assuming no changes to the program. I’m quaking in my boots.
ppgaz
I swear, nobody could make up the crazy shit you people say.
You know what’s going to “whither” (sic) without reform? The economy of this country. Social security needs some tweaks to remain a strong program well past the next generation’s benefit period. But only if the economy of the country doesn’t tank.
In case you haven’t been paying attention, massive debt propped up by foreign investment threatens to throw the fiscal security of the country into a ditch. The greatest threat to Social Security is that in 20 or 30 years, not enough people will have jobs to support the program. In a fiscally healthy future, Social Security will require what it has always required … periodic moderate reform and husbanding in response to changing actuarial realities.
If you’d worry as much about a Republican government that is going down the road to fiscal disaster, spending recklessly to buy votes and winking at schemes to steal money I paid into Social Security to prop up their profligate ways, you wouldn’t have to worry much about Social Security. Massive debt, massive trade imbalances, policies that let jobs and productivity go overseas, attacks on science which threaten to weaken the country’s competitiveness in the future, and a blind eye to staggering healthcare costs that are by far the biggest proximate threat to our fiscal future … if somebody was minding the damned store, Social Security would be fine.
Unfortunately, nobody is minding the store. They’re too busy pandering to special interests and sucking up to dysfunctional voting blocs and spinning cotton-candy talking points and inventing ways to demonize their own citizens to distract from their own miserable failures.
Stormy70
Hey, my Granmother lived on 300 a month of SS from the sixties through her death in the nineties. She owned her home and had excellent credit. She lived within those means, and was the strongest lady I know. She was disabled. She was on Medicaid, which was a great program. SS served its purpose, and there will be no cuts in existing benefits for people on SS now.
I’m pissed because SS will not be there for my generation, it will go bankrupt. Everyone my age knows it, and are making other plans. Why can’t I privatize some of my money, where it will get a better rate of return? The government is not a better steward of my money.
My stance on Government confiscation of my money has no bearing on my private giving or volunteer work I do. It’s not the job of the government to take care of anyone.
Sojourner
SS will not be there if you continue to vote for Republicans like Bush who are tanking the economy and ballooning the national debt. And if you do, blame yourself, not FDR or the liberals.
ppgaz
This thread just keeps getting better. Better, if you like Alice in Wonderland, that is.
SS is not going to go broke unless the GOP manages to steal the trust fund, or bankrupt the country … both of which they are quite capable of doing, and are doing now as we speak.
There is no set of numbers that says otherwise which can stand up to actuarial and accounting scrutiny. If you think there is, post it.
Second, taxation is not confiscation. Taxation is just taxation. What matters, as long as the rate is rational, is what is done with the taxation. A government that has no respect for appropriate taxation is not going to see to it that the taxed monies are wisely used. Try to imagine an insane president calling the Social Security Trust Fund “nothing but IOUs in file boxes,” and you’ll get the idea.
Sojourner
And what would have happened to granny if she had her own private SS account, fully invested in the stock market, and lost half of the principal as would have happened following the dot com bust? Do you think she would have survived 30 years on half the amount she had carefully saved? Or are you under the delusion that somehow granny would have dodged that fate?
Do you think that half of the retired people living below the poverty level before SS came along were lazy slobs who spent all their money rather than saving it like they should have?
I understand now why you hold so tightly to your warped view of the world. You want to be rich, you want to hold onto all of your money, and the only way to ease your conscience is to pretend that selfishness is moral and those in need deserve to do without. God help your granny if Bush’s new SS program were in place.
JG
Stormy is just proving what I’m always saying about the right. They only hear one side talking. It doesn’t matter what gets passed off as fact by the ‘appropriate information’ dispensers on right wing radio since the only people refuting it aren’t heard.
The scene with Ben Stein explaining voodoo economics to high school students in Ferris Buellers Day Off is running through my head right now.
Stormy70
Calling me selfish does not advance your argument. And I don’t care because I am Gen X, we were raised that way by our divorced parents. But hey, the 70s were one big party ,eh?
W.B. Reeves
Actually, the U.S. Constitution says otherwise. There is this little clause about promoting the general welfare.
You can debate exactly what the specifics of promoting the general welfare should be. You can even argue that the clause should be removed. What you can’t do, if you are to retain an ounce integrity, is to pretend that the clause does not exist. It’s clear meaning being that caring for the welfare of the citizenry is a primary responsibility of the Government.
Stormy70
If the Founders intended an income tax or Social Security they would have put it in the text. They didn’t.
Sojourner
That’s the lamest excuse I’ve heard for blatant selfishness. Divorced parents don’t release you from the moral obligations of citizenship.
ppgaz
Gee, Stormy. Those stupid Founders, they didn’t even have the foresight to predict the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, or nuclear weapons. Who let those dumbfucks start a country, anyway?
W.B. Reeves
“If the Founders intended an income tax or Social Security they would have put it in the text. They didn’t.”
Just so and if they had intended to give women and African Americans the vote they would have put that in as well.
I suppose we can assume that you abstain from voting out of your deep respect for the founder’s intentions?
ARROW
“You can debate exactly what the specifics of promoting the general welfare should be.”
Everything has a context, and I defy you to find anything in the Federalist Papers (or other contemporary writings at the time the Constitution was being drafted) that envisioned the U.S. government providing everybody a retirement check. That is totally ridiculous. The general welfare they had in mind probably related to the elimination of the mutually destructive warfare between the states over commerce.
ppgaz, Sojourner, JG:
This class envy crap you guys are running is pure bullshit. Do they teach you this stuff in socialism class, or what? I would not be in favor of changing the rules for people close to retirement. I think Bush was talking about people 55 or older staying on the existing system, with no change in benefits.
As far as I
ARROW
“Just so and if they had intended to give women and African Americans the vote they would have put that in as well.”
As I recall, the Constitution was amended to take care of the issues you raised. Did I miss an amendment for Social Security?
JG
Paid for by who? In the current system they would be paid by workers ss taxes. Under Bush’s plan workers divert half their ss tax into private accounts which removes half the money going to current and near future retirees. To make up the difference the government borrows. Passing the cost onto a future generation.
The law was written so that the government could take the money for current business. Its why they invested the excess money in US Treasury Bonds. When you buy US Treasury Bonds you are giving the government money to run current business. Why would I think I owned anything? Its a pay as you go system. Only people who go to Bush rallys don’t know that.
The government says ss is in danger because in the future the economy will be less robust than now and there won’t be enough workers to tax to pay retiree benfits. So you should take your money and invest in the stock market. The stock market will be a good investment because economic growth is projected to be higher than in the past. Whats wrong with this picture?
Rick
I must laugh at liberals, just in order to keep my teeth from gnashing. Their greed, sanctimoniously prettied up like a rouged pig, denies every trend of mathmatics and demographics.
Like Kevin Bacon in “Animal House”–“All is Well!!!!”
Like I said earlier, reform is coming. Either soon, and easier, or later and harsher.
Cordially…
ARROW
“When you buy US Treasury Bonds you are giving the government money to run current business. Why would I think I owned anything? Its a pay as you go system. Only people who go to Bush rallys don’t know that.”
You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. When you invest personally in a U.S. Treasury, you own the Treasury you’ve invested in. There is a market, and you can sell it at any time and get you prinicipal and accrued interest. (Are you actually so naive as to believe that foreign countries, like China, that buy U.S. Treaury Bonds/Notes, do NOT own anything? That they are just giving the money to the U.S. government?) To the contrary, you do not own the U.S. Treasury Notes that the “Trust Fund” invests in, the
JG
Of course you own the note. Doesn’t mean that by buying it you didn’t gave the government money to operate. Of course you can sell it, the government will pay back whoever owns it. Whats your point? None of this makes my statement wrong.
The government created this thing not me. If they weren’t prepared to pay it back they should’ve left it alone. Where’s the gov’t going to get the money its borrowed from China to cover Bush’s tax cuts? The ss trust fund is tiny compared to the amount the general fund aready owes and the gov’t doesn’t get to decide to default on the trust fund.
Beacause I don’t pretend to know what the market will be like in the future. Just know that when the gov’t tells you ss will fail its based on a bleak future. When they explain the virtues of private accounts they tell you the market will grow forever. Even if it did there are down periods. I hate to have retired just before 87 or to have had money on Enron stock. Also at retirement you will have to turn your private account into an annuity to pay out monthly and you’ll have to pay maintenance fees.
Sojourner
Nope. I learned it in civics class and from my parents who raised me to not be a selfish asshole like you.
Your lovely rate of return is irrelevant when you consider the trillions of dollars required to set up this program. Also, you fail to take into account what will happen when people fail to invest properly. I’m sure you have no qualms letting them starve. A lot of us, however, have trouble with that.Of course, if the government is responsible for investing, then it becomes a huge political payoff. But you like those, don’t you. Bush supporters have to like them because that’s all they get.
SS is an insurance program, not an investment program.
ARROW
“Of course you own the note. Doesn’t mean that by buying it you didn’t gave the government money to operate. Of course you can sell it, the government will pay back whoever owns it. Whats your point? None of this makes my statement wrong.”
My point is you are an idiot, but worse than that, you think you know what you’re talking about. In your own words…”Why would I think I owned anything? Its a pay as you go system.” This is an idiotic pair of statements, as I explained in my previous post. When you get corrected, you just move on like it never happened. Your most recent comments have more of the same.
Sojourner:
SS may have been an insurance program when it was first introduced, back in the time when your life expectancy was 64, and you received payments when you reached 65. That is not the case today. It is simply a wealth transfer system, disguised as a retirement plan. If you can’t see how totally ineffective and inefficient it is, then you deserve what’s coming to you if you are placing any reliance on SS payments.
As you know, I have never said I wanted to see old people starve. It’s kind of bullshit rhetoric that has no place in a logical discussion. But since you have no valid arguments, this type of rhetoric is all you have.
Sojourner
ARROW: This is exactly the purpose of SS so it’s hardly bullshit rhetoric. Try all you want to change the topic but it won’t work. You seem to have it in your head that SS is an investment program. It’s not. It’s specifically intended to provide a minimum income to keep old people and the disabled off the streets. The reason means testing has not been introduced is because of the recognition that that’s the first step towards opening the door to the Repubs getting rid of it.
And frankly, SS is recognized by all but the most partisan right-wing to be an extremely successful program. Bush learned that the hard way.
ARROW
“And frankly, SS is recognized by all but the most partisan right-wing to be an extremely successful program. Bush learned that the hard way.”
The only people that think SS is extremely successful are the people that don’t understand what’s going on. It has nothing to do with your politics. Get a clue.
SeesthroughIt
Arrow, are you really Darrell?
Sojourner
Share with us “what’s going on”, oh wise one.
Kimmitt
This whole “rate of return” meme is beyond stupid. I don’t expect great — or even positive — rates of return on my auto insurance, my fire insurance, my health insurance, or my life insurance. I expect to be protected against risk at a reasonable price. The same goes for my social insurance.
ARROW
“Share with us “what’s going on”, oh wise one.”
I have, you are too thick to comprehend, oh clueless one.
“I expect to be protected against risk at a reasonable price. The same goes for my social insurance.”
How shallow, errr cute, if you can
ARROW
“Arrow, are you really Darrell?”
No, but thanks for thinking so highly of me.
Sojourner
Please provide evidence for your claim that there won’t be SS remaining for those under 35. Your claim is contrary to every estimate I’ve seen.
Insults don’t qualify as evidence.
ARROW
“Please provide evidence for your claim that there won’t be SS remaining for those under 35.”
How can I provide evidence for something I never said? I assume there will be payments for people under 35, once they reach SS retiremnt age. I just don’t think the payments will amount to much.
I was implying that the people that would stay, would not be very smart. And “not very smart” people would probably not earn much in their lifetime in any event. Therefore, their payments would not be very large. It was just a at the geniuses that would choose to remain in the SS Titanic, errr disaster.
I wasn’t focused on the solvency issue. If you can believe the projections, they would at least get 80% of their pre-bankruptcy benefits. But you and I both know that there will be a huge outcry before then, and the FICA tax will be increased to “solve” this issue. And thus the Ponzi scheme will continue until the tax rate gets so oppressive that benefits will have to be cut.
ARROW
404
ARROW
“It was just a at the geniuses that would choose to remain in the SS Titanic, errr disaster.”
Should have been: It was just a DIG at the geniuses that would choose to remain in the SS Titanic, errr disaster.
Sojourner
Okay.
Okay.
Evidence?
Rick
The same goes for my social insurance.
Smart folks buy term, rather than whole, life, and invest the difference.
In rate of return, SS is comparable to whole life, and by stretching it to cover all wage earners, has made it what it wasn’t supposed to be: a cornerstone entitlement, rather than a safety net or welfare program for the indigent elderly.
Short of real reform giving the Ss taxpayers their just rights to their money, I’d settle for another form of justice, and that would be to forthrightly proclaim its income transfer/welfare purpose, thereby making such withholdings a FIT credit. That is, no “lockbox” nonsense.
Cordially…
Sojourner
Actually, when you take into account payoffs to the handicapped and families who have lost their primary breadwinner, the rate of return is about comparable to that of the stock market.
Darn decent performance I’d say.
ARROW
“And thus the Ponzi scheme will continue until the tax rate gets so oppressive that benefits will have to be cut.”
“Evidence?”
First you give me your’s.
Sojourner
Nope. Every time I ask you for evidence, you dodge. Put up or shut up.
W.B. Reeves
As I said earlier, the comments on this thread give an excellent illustration of why the Social Security phase out drive has fallen flat. The phase out gang just doesn’t get it. Evidently, they have such a low opinion of their fellow citizens they think no one will recognize the essential dishonesty of their argument. Pretending to dispute the merits or demerits of a particular policy is ineffective when its quite plain that the success or failure of the program is irrelevant to their desire to destroy it.
Let’s be clear. These folks oppose SS for one reason and one reason only. It is a Government guaranteed benefit. They oppose it for baldly ideological reasons, the rest is simply window dressing for the rubes. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the citizenry are not so gullible as they suppose, nor is the phase out crowd as smart as they think themselves to be. If they were, they wouldn’t be ranting about Socialism and insulting those who disagree with them.
There really isn’t anything new in this debate. The arguments of the phase out crowd haven’t changed in over fourty years. They have been predicting the imminent bankruptcy of SS since before I was born. Yet, SS endures.
An intelligent approach to attempting to dismember SS would require examining the reasons for its popularity without indulging the petty egotism of writing off more than half the population as intellectual inferiors. However, that would mean recognizing that people approve of SS for the very reason that the phase out crowd hates it: it is a Government guaranteed benefit.
There is really no way that the U.S. Government will ever default on SS short of its own collapse. That is why people of moderate means and with no ambitions to be Donald Trump prefer it to “privatization.” Economic meltdowns in the private sector are not alien to the citizen’s experience, whereas the Government is a constant. The purpose of SS is to provide a baseline of economic security for the elderly, the disabled, the widowed and the orphaned. The blandishment that greater returns may be had by private investment fails because people recognize that there is no way, other than suspending the laws of market economics, that the private sector could make such a guarantee. Since the government guarantees the currency and therefore the solvency of the nation, people see no reason why it shouldn’t guarantee SS as well.
This leaves the phase out crowd in an awkward position. So they simply ignore the true purpose of SS and argue as though it were solely a retirement plan. Point out that SS is actually the line between a society that accepts pauperism and starvation as facts of life and one that does not and out come the simple-minded attacks on “Socialism”, “class envy”, “class war” and assorted other boogey men. I’d be careful of this sort of argument if I were they. Convince enough people that SS is the epitome of Socialism and you may have something to really gnash your teeth over.
This may sound as though I think the phase out crowd is composed entirely of cynical hypocrites. No, not entirely. I’m certain that many of them are completely sincere in their ideological conviction that U.S. society should operate on the principle of winner take all and Devil take the hindmost. I’ve yet to meet anyone of this view who wasn’t certain that they would be among the winners. In some cases the belief was clearly justified, in others, not so much.
Ideologically speaking, the real odds don’t matter. Such folks consider themselves part of an elite because they make, or believe they can make, more money than others. This is because income is the primary measure of personal worth in their market driven system of values. Suggest that there are other, more profound standards of value superceeding the obsessive accumulation of wealth and the squall will rise again. Understandibly so. Take away the money measure and what claim to special status would they have?
Emotionally and intellectually such folks are ideologues. They are driven by a set of ideas they find congenial regardless of external realities. Naturally this can result in severe distortions in the thought process.
For example: person A argues that SS is invalid because it wasn’t written into the Constitution over 200 years ago, implying it is illigitimate for that reason. Person B points out that women’s suffrage wasn’t written in either. Is it illegitimate as well? Person C sallys forth to argue that women’s suffrage was added by amendment. Person C thinks he has supported person A’s argument when he has, in fact, demolished it.
The Constitution empowers the Government to make laws and to amend the document itself. It follows that a particular policy need not be expressly stated in the Constitution so long as it is not expressly forbidden. Even in the latter case the Constitution is not written in stone, as the amendment process shows. To say that something isn’t specified in the Constitution, as opposed to being forbidden, isn’t an argument. It is meaningless noise.
Person C could argue that SS requires an amendment but then C would have to show where the Constitution forbids such a policy or why SS doesn’t fall under the general welfare clause. A hard row to hoe after seventy-odd years.
Addendum: The foolishness of treating political documents as scripture is compounded when extended to theoretical polemics. The framer’s signed the Constitution, not the Federalist Papers.
ARROW
I have already put up, so why don’t you SHUT UP.
Sojourner
Thanks, W.B. for your very eloquent post. I agree completely – it comes down to one’s vision for American society and one’s own personal values. I believe that society has a responsible to provide at least a minimum safety net and I also don’t worship the dollar as the ultimate measure of one’s worth.
Sojourner
As I expected, ARROW has no evidence to support his case so he can only resort to insults. Don’t feel bad, ARROW. As W.B. pointed out, nobody else has been able to make a strong case either other than to shout “socialism” as many times as possible. Thankfully, the American people aren’t as stupid as you think they are.
ARROW
W.B. Reeves:
Interesting OPINIONS. You have a writing style that I would refer to as
ARROW
“Such folks consider themselves part of an elite because they make, or believe they can make, more money than others. This is because income is the primary measure of personal worth in their market driven system of values. Suggest that there are other, more profound standards of value superceeding the obsessive accumulation of wealth and the squall will rise again. ”
Money is important because without it, you have no liberties. It is important for what it allows you to do. I would just as soon decide what my money is spent, rather than some elitist telling me what is important. This “
” meme is what socialists regimes have been spotting since they came into to being. Since we are all different, who decides what these values are?
Sojourner
Funny, I thought the Constitution said all men are created equal. If money is required to have liberties it is only because the American people have allowed that to be the case.
ARROW
Sojourner:
Spoke like a true socialist. Be careful what you wish for.
W.B. Reeves
First, let me congratulate you on writing a well phrased explanation of your viewpoint. You obviously put some thought and effort into it.
Now to address your points.
ARROW
“If money is required to have liberties it is only because the American people have allowed that to be the case.”
Have read any of the work done by John Locke (Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690), or James Harrington (The Commonwealth of Oceana, 1656)? Or maybe the Debates on the Putney Project, 1647. This would give you an idea of what men thought liberty was, before men became as decadent as we are today. These people just wanted a government structure to protect their property, which in those days might be expanded to cover the right to work and live wherever they pleased and to have a voice (vote) with those who governed. Many of the ideas for the Constitution came from these writings, as well as others.
What could you do without money? What if you lived in a society where you were tied to a landowner, and all you got for efforts was the bare necessities of life (no money)? How far removed from that is a system that owns all property, determines what’s produced, and how it’s distributed. And how far removed from that is a society that takes some of your money and decides how it will be spent/distributed. While the U.S. is no where near a socialist state, it does take a fair amount of what’s produced and decides how it will be spent. How much of this spending protects your liberties?
ARROW
“Perhaps you could provide a definition of what you consider an elitist writing style? It’s true that I don’t usually resort to vituperation such as calling people “idiots” or “morons” for disagreeing with me but I hardly think that qualifies as elitist.”
I see you have been reading some other posts of mine. Perhaps I went a bit far with those comments, I would have to back and see the context (what I was responding to). As for you, I explained what I meant, i.e., “You offer opinions as facts, and look down your nose at others with differing opinions”, but with hindsight I was probably reacting to our prior run-in as well. You do come across as being on some sort of high horse, but I may be just as guilty in your eyes. Please excuse the gratutitous comments.
ARROW
“You’re certainly entitled to espouse this if you choose. However, the U.S. Constitution has no clause making our liberties dependent on how much money we possess.”
I could be wrong, but I don’t think the Constitution was written with a view to hand out rights, but more to protect the “natural” rights of man. These natural rights don’t come from government, and government doesn’t give us our liberties. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from the power of a strong government, not to specify what the government thought we were entitled to in terms of rights and liberties:
Liberty is not limited to money. But much of the rewards of our liberty is reflected in money. Without money, you would not have much of a life, but you would still have many liberties (such as choosing to move to get a job, join a church, fly a kite (if you had one), etc.). Certainly you aren’t suggesting that the government must guarantee that we have the essentials to enjoy our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
ARROW
“The Constitutional convention never voted on the Federalist Papers. The Papers are valuable for historical purposes but they do not, by themselves, have the force of Law and they certainly don’t trump the letter of the Constitution.”
If you have read the Federalist Papers, you would know that they are arguments for the language in the Constitution, and provide a valuable insight into what the founders had in mind. They were today’s political advertisements (with a bit more class), and in some cases were just as irreverent to the other sides’ viewpoint. Since there was no legislative history back then, these documents are the closest thing to it.
Unlike some “conservatives,” I don’t believe that the Constitution is static. But do believe that if a change is needed, it should have widespread consent. In other words, I believe it should be amended, not given new meanings by judges legislating their beliefs. And this I believe, even when I agree with the judge’s beliefs, because each new “law” takes away somebody’s liberty.
Sojourner
“Spoke like a true socialist. Be careful what you wish for.”
Substituting name calling for missing evidence is a losing strategy.
ARROW
Sojourner:
“Spoke like a true socialist. Be careful what you wish for.”
My comment above has no bearing on your request for evidence, it was offered in response to your comment:
Your request for evidence of a Ponzi scheme is sort of ridiculous. My comment was a reference to the impending shortfall in FICA tax receipts and is based on projections done by various mainstream organizations:
The above-quoted material is from Wikipedia. If you’ll look back, you will note that I posted this quote previously (or at least the link).
From M-W online:
The obvious implication of a Ponzi scheme is that later “investors” will not get back their investment. What’s your point? Do you think anything someone says on this blog about projected future events is supportable by evidence? Or do you think your calls for evidence are some sort of substitute for a reasoned response?
Sojourner
You’re complaining about a possible temporary drop in benefits of 20% while the boomers die off? Good grief, if Bush’s plan were implemented there would be an IMMEDIATE drop in benefits combined with several trillion dollars in debt. Simple tweaking would take care of the problem but the reality is you don’t care about the shortfall. You want to kill the program.
The vast majority of Americans don’t.
ARROW
Sojourner:
The reduction in benefits will be a problem for someone. And the “several trillion dollars in debt” does not create new debt, but only accelarates debt that is coming in any event. The idea is to increase returns so that there will be less for the government to fund in the future.
I admit I would like to see SS changed significantly. There would have to be a transition for those close to retirement age. I think it could be made better, and with the Medicare and Medicade funding issues also on the horizon, it seems responsible to address the obvious approaching problems.
But, oh well, if you don’t see a problem, there is really no reason for me to go on and on. I bid you farewell on this subject.