My take on Social Security is that it is pretty irresponsible to go on national television proposing drastic cuts in rates of return on the same day that your budget expands the deficit with another $106 billion in tax cuts and cuts Medicaid by $10 billion.
But that is just me, and I don’t view myself as a compassionate conservative- I am what used to be called a Republican.
The Democrat approach on Social Security, if you read Kevin Drum, Atrios, and Micah is summed up with one word:
“Nyet.”
Personally, if I could be convinced the money was going to actually go to pay for the transition to private accounts, I would be all in favor of rolling back many of the tax cuts, as the economy seems to be much better than it was when the cuts were enacted.
But, with gamesmanship the way it is, and Social Security such an excrutiatingly dull topic to write or think about, I am going to revert to my default position, which is that Social Security is not going to exist when I am a retiree, so I better keep investing.
Kimmitt
I very much agree with this:
My take on Social Security is that it is pretty irresponsible to go on national television proposing drastic cuts in rates of return on the same day that your budget expands the deficit with another $106 billion in tax cuts and cuts Medicaid by $10 billion.
I have a hard time agreeing with this:
The Democrat [sic] approach on Social Security, if you read Kevin Drum, Atrios, and Micah is summed up with one word:
Er, the Democratic approach on Social Security is, “The system works, but it has a few flaws. Give us a proposal in good faith, and we’ll talk about it.”
Mr Furious
“Social Security is not going to exist when I am a retiree, so I better keep investing”
I hope you know who you can think for that.
Jason
I hope you know who you can thank for that.
Yeah… the gargantuan baby boom generation.
Kimmitt
Unless there is a genuine Argentina-style meltdown, I simply cannot conceive of Social Security being cancelled as a program.
S Ty
The “gargantuan baby boom generation” will put pressure on the system for a small number of years and then subside back to regular. Certainly no cause for scrapping the system, but rather a government that’s incompetent to take the necessary steps. Thanks to a rudely-informed electorate, “the necessary steps” will now be entailing the rescindment of the “laws” this gang of thugs has shoved down the people’s throats in pursuung their crazy corporatist state vision.
The corporations have to be stood up to by a majority of Americans and said loudly and clearly to and with as much prejudice as necessary: “No.”
JG
The people in charge are the new version of the people who were in charge when the fight was lost to FDR. They aren’t trying to fix social security, they are trying to phase it out. I thought it was hialrious last night when he said you could change your private account so that it invests in bonds. Aren’t those the ‘worthless IOUs’ that currently make up the trust fund? Is it just me or are these guys preying on people who don’t understand how social security works? Its easy to scare people with ‘you won’t get back the money you put in’ when they think there is an account in their name that contains all the money they’ve been contributing to social security.
Flagwaver
Kimmitt,
If you think what the Democrats are saying is “give us a good faith proposal, and we’ll consider it” you are either deaf, or the most naive person in town.
What Teddy, Hillary, Nancy et al are saying is “NO proposal that does not guarantee continued government monopoly over most people’s “retirement” savings will even be discussed.” This stems from (depending on your degree of cynicism) either their “core belief” that I’m too fuckin’ dumb to take care of myself, or their cynical, partisan desire to continue to use a government program to scare their AARP constituents into supporting them, and keep as many as possible sucking off the government teat.
If a corporation operated a program where the forced you to contribute money from each paycheck, PROMISING you a certain level of benefits when you retired, and spent the money on operating expenses, substituting a corporate “note” for the money, and ANY actuary would tell you that the “plan” was massively and intentionally underfunded, they would be guilty of a crime. Why should I let government get away with a Ponzi scheme that would get a CEO thrown in the pokey???
SS is a giant fraud, and anyone my age (51) or younger who believes they can “depend” on the promised benefits is an imbecile. I’m planning my retirement on the basis that I will get not DIME ONE from SS, and that is the ONLY prudent way to plan . . . because YOUR side is going to guarantee that no meaningful reform is enacted.
Go learn some math, some portfolio theory, get a basic understanding of demographics and actuarial projections, and come give me ANY rational scenario that shows SS being solvent 50 years from now.
Keep swillin’ the Kool-Aid, dude, but don’t stop putting money away, ’cause you AIN’T gonna retire on your SS, and that’s a fact.
JG
‘ substituting a corporate “note” for the money,’
You can’t possibly think that anyone would let the money just sit there. Its stupid not to invest the money. Thas what happened. It was invested in US Treasury Bonds. The stablest investment in history…until Bush comes along and says they’re worthless IOUs. Only someone who failed at every business venture would see a US Treasury Bond as a worthless IOU.
If the plan is to get rid of SS then say it and do it. I’ll manage. Just don’t act like your trying to fix it when all your doing is creating another issue to paint dems as against heading into another election cycle.
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=753
‘
RW
Oh, please.
It was spent along with the general fund by both parties. Don’t try that “it was invested” stuff, we’re adults. It’s been SPENT.
A successful millionaire who served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers and who currently has a long line of Democratic political corpses behind him knows that it is an IOU, but not “worthless”. They’ll just raise taxes, as always.
No one has proposed that. That’s akin to someone saying that the Democrats are socialists because they want tax hikes.
Unless someone can point to a proposal by any politician in the history of our legislature calling for the end or abolition of social security, you guys really need to drop that pablum. You no longer have a stranglehold on the media and the BS doesn’t work, any more. Get out of the 1940s, for goodness sakes.
Oh, great, left-wing spam postited as a definitive source.
IT’S LEFT WING ADVOCACY.
Talk about bullshit.
RW
Translation: take away from those who achieve and redistribute to those who do not (our base) and we’ll give the okey-dokey.
Again.
JG
‘IT’S LEFT WING ADVOCACY.’
Doesn’t make it false.
‘Oh, please. It was spent along with the general fund by both parties. Don’t try that “it was invested” stuff, we’re adults. It’s been SPENT.’
Is that what we’re going to say to the chinese when there loans come due. Sorry its been spent. The SS Trust Fund invested in US Treasury Bonds. They are a promisary note. You can buy one too. You get interest and a pay back promise. They are IOUs, no one said they wern’t, but they have value. Your checking account is essentially an IOU, it still has value as an assett last I checked.
Bush was made executive vice president in charge of pencil sharpening at a few firms in the old boy network. After a few years the pencil sharpening division somehow was losing money. Then Bush would get ‘maybe its time you moved on, expanded your horizons’ speech and it was on to the next company. Didn’t he own like 5% of the Rangers? He was a failure. Often.
Kimmitt
Translation: take away from those who achieve and redistribute to those who do not (our base) and we’ll give the okey-dokey.
I love the smell of whiny libertarians in the morning. Smells like . . . Social Darwinism.
RW
Sold his share for something like $18 million when he decided to become the DNC slayer.
Ask Ann Richards. Or Al Gore. Or John Kerry.
So, $18 million is a failure, huh?
When you get on the end that pays the bills instead of sucking at the teat, Kimmitt, we’ll talk.
You’re really quite pissy, today, BTW. You usually don’t take this stuff so seriously (and it’s not meant to be)….having a bad morning?
RW
It’s been spent.
It’s been spent.
I have, via payroll taxes. That have been spent.
Nice setup. The government grabs the money (that they’ve taken from taxpayers) from one pile, puts into another pile and calls it an “investment” and places an IOU on the old pile, spends the “investment” on the general fund, then goes back to those same taxpayers and forces them to pay the “interest” on the “investment”.
And we wonder why they have to keep raising the social security taxes every so often? Try that scenario on your own company and see how long it takes until you’re arrested.
Actually, I’ve seen several bloggers do just that.
You haven’t seen my checking account lately. :)
Kimmitt
It is profoundly irresponsible for the President to imply that the full faith and credit of the American people is not attached to Federal securities.
Kimmitt
When you get on the end that pays the bills instead of sucking at the teat, Kimmitt, we’ll talk.
I’m sorry, but you don’t know me, and you don’t know how I’ve lived — or intend to live. My household income’s been in the 70s at one point in my life, and I expect it to be in the 100s five years from now. My grandfather lives with dignity because of his Social Security, and my in-laws, who lost massively when United went bankrupt, are now telling me how glad they are that they have the risk-free backup of Social Security for their retirement.
You usually don’t take this stuff so seriously (and it’s not meant to be)….
I really don’t believe this; you’ve got your views and you argue for them. Libertarians piss me off; their make-believe fantasy world — in which there are no risks, externalities, or transactions costs — does a lot of damage when implemented in reality. In addition, I’m not a Social Darwinist, so I don’t get off on this whole “we need to punish people who have bad luck or who don’t have talents which are rewarded by our current technological structure so that we can feel good about ourselves” thing.
Kimmitt
Though lately I have been feeling more sympathy for your position as I come to understand how massively the Blue states subsidize the Red states’ ongoing poor governance.
RW
Kimmitt,
I’m not a libertarian (is there anything you get right?).
I’ll ignore the rest, and you for a while, since you’re doing little other than acting like a prick, lately.
Sheesh, lighten up, Francis.
BTW, thanks for the resume’ of intentions. Let us know when you walk on the moon, cure AIDS and win the super bowl, as well. :)
{and since you’re so prissy today I guess I need to point out that the above was a JOKE}
Kimmitt
No, see, I can tell when you’re joking.
SilverRook2000
Personal flaming aside, the Social Security program was a response to a severe problem that was a result of the Great Depression. Roosevelt was being pressured by the Left (Townshend et. al.) and he had to do something that had an impact right away. Otherwise, a real pension program would have made sense. Instead, political necessity required a Ponzi scheme. Even then, actuarily it made sense. Average life span in 1938 was 65, full benefits (such as they were) kicked in at 65. Everyone was included so it could be sold as “insurance”. It has been expanded over the years and people are living longer. As a group, Baby Boomers have paid more, and for more years than any other group. The previous generation’s taxes were a lot lower. The future payments are staggering again in the short term. Private accounts are designed to actually build a system that does acquire equity. A mandatory portfolio of treasury bonds is still a better solution than the current system. This is not “social” Darwinism, this is reality. You don’t have to agree with the President’s plan but how about an alternative to the status quo?
MC
I have to say – I really don’t understand the fascination with private accounts. We have them today, they’re called IRA plans and they’re not just a tool of the rich. They should be expanded, but that’s another argument.
If it’s a burden to contribute to your IRA, it’s a burden to have money deducted from your paycheck for some government-run retirement fund. Either way, it’s less money in the here and now. At least with a voluntary contribution, if someone’s kid needs braces this year, the money is available. Not with forced savings.
If people are trusted to manage their own retirement, like the President seems to argue, why aren’t they smart enough to make the necessary contributions and investments. If they’re not smart enough to that, then how are they smart enough to manage a fund that the government forces you to contribute money into?
I’m sort-of a Democrat, but I have no real attachment to Social Security. If it’s time to get rid of it, let’s just figure out how to do it and not crush middle-aged people in the process.
If it turns into a redistributive program, that’s fine too. I make a decent living, better than most, but things I have are also made possible by the public school teacher that taught me to read, the people that cleaned buildings at my state-run college, the guys who pave the road in front of my house, the guys who run electrical cable around my city, the cops and firemen that protect my property by enforcing the law, etc…
These people don’t earn money like investment planners, consultants, or small business owners, but they’re entitled to a decent lifestyle too. Anyone who “worked hard for their success” should remember all the people that make it possible and protect it.
Jim Anchower
SS is a giant fraud, and anyone my age (51) or younger who believes they can “depend” on the promised benefits is an imbecile. I’m planning my retirement on the basis that I will get not DIME ONE from SS, and that is the ONLY prudent way to plan . . . because YOUR side is going to guarantee that no meaningful reform is enacted.
Who’s drinking the Kool-Aid?
If it’s such a giant fraud then how are millions of seniors and disabled cashing those checks every month?
What I love is that the easiest way to secure Social Security for another 50 or so years is to raise the SS tax slightly. Like $0.15 slightly. And this isn’t even on the table because it’s a “tax increase”.
Absolutely unbelievable.
JG
‘The SS Trust Fund invested in US Treasury Bonds.
It’s been spent. ‘
Of course its been spent. Thats what you do with money you borrow, you spend it. Later you pay it back. The general fund boorowed from the SS fund buy selling it bonds. Bush has said we aren’t going to pay back the bonds. The amount owed to the SS fund is a small portion of the giant nut that the general fund owes due to gov’t borrowing (a lot of that due to Bush’s brilliant tax-cut and spend model of republican fiscal responsibility…don’t forget the war). Greenspan, back when Reagan was president, created this excess revenue to have around when the baby boomers retired. It was invested in bonds with the intent that it would be paid back when it was needed. Along comes Bush who says its a myth so that SS looks worse than it really is. Now its easier to scare an audience full of carefully screened people into believing Bush has all the answers but its the damn democrats standing in the way. Its not that the plan is ridiculously stupid, its the dems who just want to take your money anyway who are standing in the way and refusing to propose their own plan.
SS has problems. Bush’s plan doesn’t fix it. It makes it worse.
So Bush sold his interests in the Rangers as a profit? I take it back he was a savvy businessman. I bet no one else who owned a part of the company yet had no involvment in the day to day activites sold at a profit. He’s so smart.
bs23
i think it’s especially hilarious to contemplate telling the chinese banks that the bonds have been spent. on chinese goods.
RW
It’s been spent since the 60s, IIRC. They’ve increased the payroll taxes along the way and kept on spending the surpluses. You can keep calling it an investment in T-Bonds all day long & it’ll get you about as far as calling a dog a pear tree — they’ve spent the money and they’re going to increase our taxes in order to get it back.
I doubt that he’d have sold if he weren’t running for office and anyone who says that he didn’t get his managing gen. Ptnr position because his last name was “Bush” would be fibbing, but he did end up quite successful in a business sense, yes.
The value of the Texas Rangers exploded while he was there, so anyone who sold their shares did so at a monumental profit.
Well, he is smart enough to have a degree from Yale, an MBA from Harvard, the ability to fly a jet plane and kick the dogshit out of Ann Richards while defeating a sitting Veep and Mr. War Hero, so he must have something going on.
Of course, commenters on the internet are SO MUCH SMARTER than the leader of the free world (I know because I read it on the web). :)
Note smiley!
It may. I dunno. I haven’t checked into the plan. We, as a nation, should debate the matter of how to handle the upcoming trainwreck of the social security program because the bill is coming due down the road. What we don’t need is demagougic statements asserting that one side wants to do away with it simply because one hates that side with a seething passion.
Let us, as a nation, debate the topic…..logically and with clear heads.
Okay, that leaves me out……
JG
‘The value of the Rangers exploded while he was there.’
Because of him? I doubt it. I think just about all MLB teams rose in value during the years Bush was invested in the Rangers. His involvement was post-strike right? How does that make him a successful businessman again? He graduated from Yale and Harvard and he’s smart so everyone who graduated from those schools is smart? I doubt that too. He ain’t a dunce but don’t try to act like this guy is a great mind or anything. Just watching him in any live debate or press conference makes it clear this guy is not the brains of the operation. He’s Spaulding Smails in real life.
Flagwaver
Anchower,
I can forgive ignorance, but snarky, arrogant ignorance is an invitation to a bitch-slapping, so here goes:
“If it’s such a giant fraud then how are millions of seniors and disabled cashing those checks every month?”
Because they are using MY friggin’ payroll taxes to pay them, dumbass! The money THEY “invested” in this FRAUD was SPENT – decades ago. So, when I retire, whose payroll taxes are going to pay ME?? There are slightly over three taxpayers supporting each recipient of SS today. BY the time I retire, based on current demographic estimates, the numbers will be around one to one. Not too long after that, there will be MORE recipients than people contributing. Siddown with a calculator (assuming you know how to use one), and figure out how much your payroll taxes will be then.
“What I love is that the easiest way to secure Social Security for another 50 or so years is to raise the SS tax slightly. Like $0.15 slightly. And this isn’t even on the table because it’s a “tax increase”.”
First of all, your numbers are COMPLETELY full of shit. To get another 50 years out of the system, they either have to completely remove the cap on income subject to the SS tax, or they have to raise the tax RATES by a third. That’s 33% for you, Anchower. Second, that’s a “fix” approximately equal to Daylight Savings time. All it does is take an actuarial inevitability, and postpone the day of reckoning (something you Democrats seem unduly fond of).
The ONLY “solution” to SS is to decide whether we want it to be welfare or a retirement program. If it is intended to be nothing more than a “safety net,” to support idjits who were too short-sighted to plan appropriately for their retirement, then call a spade a spade, means test the benefits, and we can probably keep the payroll taxes about where they are – ’cause we’re only going to be using the fund to support the losers, and hopefully most of us have been smart enough to save for their own retirement.
If we’re going to maintain this fiction that SS is a retirement system, then TREAT it like a retirement system. Corporate pension plans are subject to ERISA – a corporation that tried to do what the US government has been doing for more than 50 years would be guilty of a crime. Creating an actuarially and fiscally sound system will involve some pain – but doing nothing will involve even MORE pain. But the pain won’t hit while Hillary and Teddy and Nancy are in office, so why inflict pain now, and solve the problem, when we can let our great grandkids deal with a bankrupt system????
A-holes. Pandering, partisan, dishonest, lying a-holes. There IS a crisis. The system IS bankrupt (by the very standards that the government imposes on corporate retirement funds). There are a NUMBER of REAL solutions – and Bush’s plan is one of them. Don’t like the Bush plan? Fine propose something else THAT IS ACTUARIALLY AND FINANCIALLY SOUND. Not more of this Ponzi scheme shell game. Not postponing the inevitable. Something that puts SS on a sustainable footing.
Or else admit that all you are doing is buying time at the expense of my grandkids.
Randolph Fritz
“Social Security is not going to exist when I am a retiree, so I better keep investing.” When I looked at this last, I decided that a government which won’t take care of social security also won’t take care of small investors. You can’t trust the annual reports of a US company any more–no investment in a US business is reliable. Investing outside of the USA is hopeful, as is investing in a house you occupy, but neither are certain.
It’s not either/or; it’s both/and.
Kimmitt
So, when I retire, whose payroll taxes are going to pay ME?? There are slightly over three taxpayers supporting each recipient of SS today. BY the time I retire, based on current demographic estimates, the numbers will be around one to one.
I’m sorry, but this really isn’t true.
From the Social Security website, we find that the ratio of Covered workers: Beneficiaries is currently 3.3. If you’re 51 now, you’re expecting retirement in 2020 or so. The worst-case scenario (which truly is apocalyptic) has the ratio at 2.4. Rosier scenarios put the ratio at 2.5-2.6. None of them put it at less than 1.0 at any point, and they project out to 2080.
Source: SS Trustees Report.
The ONLY “solution” to SS is to decide whether we want it to be welfare or a retirement program.
It is neither — it is an insurance program much like mandatory life insurance.
RW
I doubt it. I think just about all MLB teams rose in value during the years Bush was invested in the Rangers.
No, I don’t think it was because of him & wasn’t trying to portray that. The economics of baseball is beyond micromanaging.
However, you were all ready to blame Bush for bad business ventures that he ran but not so ready to give him credit for the obvious successes…….noticable.
If an $800,000 investment that turns into around $18 million a decade later isn’t a successful business venture I want some of that failure.
The correct answer is “yes”. Look, I’m all for partisanship and the like, but let’s not go over the edge, for Pete’s sake.
Then it should be easy for some Democrat to defeat him as governor or President. Were Ann Richards, Al Gore and John Kerry dunces?
That’s known as being inarticulate.
But, hey, if it makes you guys sleep better to say that he’s less than intelligent, go ahead. Saying the same thing about Reagan worked so well.
Christie S.
The “gargantuan baby boom generation” will put pressure on the system for a small number of years and then subside back to regular. >
Perfect! I had wondered if I was the only one out there to realize this. The “crisis” will inevitably reverse itself due to the mortality of the babyboom population. Call me naive if you will, but I figure we should only have about 10 years of absolute “crisis” when all the babyboomers are within the retirement age-bracket. After that, the first wave will start dying off, thereby easing the strain on the system.
So, instead of completely scrapping the system or fundamentally changing the way it operates, why can’t we simply figure out how to make the system ride out the 10-30 year difficult patch?
Kimmitt
Because, as RW and Flagwaver make clear, the whole point is to scrap the system as quickly as possible. They have ideological objections to the system, and the reality of its operation is irrelevant to that.
RW
Kimmitt stop being a freaking troll. I support social security you twit.
Take some time off…..your consistent strawmen are annoying and brainless.
Kimmitt
Then my sincere apologies. I misinterpreted your rather caustic comments.
No one has proposed that.
Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security’s got to go…
RW
Stop being a freaking troll and go learn about the legislative process and how one can introduce a bill that they’ve proposed.
Good lord, because a group of people chant “heyyy, hoooooo” outside of a hip-hop concert it doesn’t mean they’re proposing it in congress.
You’re currently ranking a seven on the “ignore” scale, Kimmitt. One more idiotic entry does it.
Being a moveon.org wacko didn’t help.
Kimmitt
Okay, wait — since my thesis is that the current set of proposals is a trojan horse for eventual dissolution of the program, how is the fact that actual proposals to dissolve the program have not yet materialized relevent? My point is that the current set of proposals is a faux reform which will only make things worse. My interpretation of this point is that, since they just happens to be being pushed by people who don’t like Social Security, perhaps there’s a long-term plan in motion here. Also, I am frustrated that you did not note that you didn’t include “in Congress” in the sentence referenced. I put forward a spontaneous chant at a Republican rally on Social Security which was consistent with my thesis. Both interpretations are consistent with the text you posted.
You’re currently ranking a seven on the “ignore” scale, Kimmitt. One more idiotic entry does it.
Look, man, I can only respond to what you actually write, not what someone with a thorough knowledge of your background would interpret as what you meant.
I’ll do some research and see if I can find any legislation which explicitly seeks to dissolve OASDI.
RW
The target audience was JG. JG, and most other adults it appears, didn’t need the remedial version explained. Were it to have been you I most certainly would’ve……used different wording, so to speak.
Now would be a good time for a “Bush is stupid” joke from someone.
ppgaz
Yes, the Republicans have been scripting the current attack on Social Security for over 20 years.
Not news. Kimmit is full of crap.
Read it at:
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Cato-Heritage-1983-Lenin-Plan.pdf
Kimmitt
I’m not sure why I’m full of crap. Let me rephrase that; I know I’m full of crap, but I’m not sure how that ties into this particular conversation.
ppgaz
Read the link I supplied in the post.
Then explain why Bush’s stealth torpedo into Social Security should be trusted, in light of the fact that it’s apparently a scripted Republican strategy to destroy the program while appearing to be aimed at “saving” it.
Kimmitt
Um, I’m not arguing in favor of Bush’s plan. I think you’re thinking I’m someone else.
For example, just a little bit above here, I wrote:
my thesis is that the current set of proposals is a trojan horse for eventual dissolution of the program,
This is because my thesis is that the current set of proposals is a trojan horse for eventual dissolution of the program.
Birkel
Anybody who proposes that SS is just like insurance should be ignored on the issue of SS.
And derided, of course.
Perhaps taunted.
But never engaged.
Kimmitt
You have it precisely backwards. Anyone who does not grasp that Social Security (more properly, OASDI — Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) is not an insurance program has little enough information on the program that their opinion is meaningless.
ppgaz
As I said in another thread … I think I did have you confused with someone else, kimmit.
My apologies.