GOP Social Security

For the poor and middle class, that is a contradiction in terms.

http://www.smudgereport.com/



Bush Jr. wants to be like Hoover when he grows up. I just hope another Democrat like FDR will be able to bail us out of the mess Republicans have got us in.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Assuming the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped the American people regain faith in themselves. He brought hope as he promised prompt, vigorous action, and asserted in his Inaugural Address, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstate.html

"This law represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means completed--a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions, to act as a protection to future administrations of the Government against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy--a law to flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation--in other words, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness." -August 14, 1935

 

Social security will have disastrous results if it is not privatized in the immediate future. I don't agree with George Bush on very much, but I fully support his desire to privatize it. I know his plan isn't perfect, and I know it will be expensive. But the cost of privatization is nothing compared to the cost of inaction.

Personally I'd prefer the Libertarian Party's social security plan to George Bush's. They advocate auctioning off our unused military bases around the world - rather than run up a huge deficit - to pay for social security. But Bush would never agree to that, because you never know when WMDs might turn up in Palau.

 

Bull shit. It would be fine if Republicans would stop raiding it to fund their wars. When Clinton was President he extended the life of Social Security to another 35 years.

When Ronald Reagan was President he tried to dismantle it completely to fund his "Star Wars" missile shield.

Check your facts dude.

Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.

Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton’s call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-01.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

 

That's still just delaying the inevitable. Eventually social security WILL run out of money if the system is not changed. The way it's set up right now, it's a Ponzi scheme that would be illegal if it was run by anyone other than the government. The money you put into social security is not invested for your retirement; it is used immediately to pay those who have already retired.

LOL, you're kidding right? Have you been living in a cave for the last four years?

 

Again I say Bull Shit. It would be fine if Republicans would stop raiding it to fund their wars. When Clinton was President he extended the life of Social Security to another 35 years. If Al Gore were allowed to stay on the economic track we were on, our entire National Debt would be paid off in about 6 years from now. Without the burden of compounding interest, the Social Security trust fund would make more money that it spends and we could have lower taxes.

Do you even know what compounding interest is?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Are you completely retarded? You really don't understand what I am talking about do you? Click on the link above and do your homework and maybe you won't sound so stupid.

 

The only way you can keep social security the way it is and not have it run out of money is if you have everyone in the country right now go have sex and have kids in 9 months, there is just not enough people paying into the system, especially once the baby boomers come.

 

Where is the proof Madcap? Do you have ANY evidence to support your claim or are you just reciting Rush Limbaugh?

 

When social security started in the US in the 1940s, there were eight people working for every retiree. Now there are half that number and when the baby boomer generation retires there will be two.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3691205.stm

 

No, it would still ultimately fail. You said it yourself - Clinton extended the life of Social Security for 35 years. The mere fact that you gave a number of years implies that, at some point in the future, social security WILL run out of money. It could be more or less than 35 years, depending on whose in charge, but it will eventually run out of money because of the way it is structured.

You're changing your argument now. Earlier you stated that the national debt would be paid off in six years (you neither said nor implied "if Al Gore had been president"), making it sound as though we had plenty of money to throw toward social security. Such a statement was not only inaccurate, but it was intellectually dishonest as well.

Of course. But apparently you do not, as it is completely irrelevant to the social security debate. The "social security trust fund" is completely bankrupt and has been for years. X% of $0 is still $0.

From your own website: "The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $2.56 billion per day since September 30, 2004!"

...hardly evidence of us paying down the national debt in six years.

 

Wow, you posted a picture of Limbaugh as a pig. Obviously that means that your argument must be valid...*sarcasm*

I lean left-libertarian, and am certainly no fan of Rush's, but if a picture of Limbaugh as a pig is the best "evidence" you can come up with to support your claims, maybe you should demand the same standard of evidence from yourself as you do from others. (FYI: Most intelligent conservatives know that Limbaugh is a moron.)

It is YOU that has failed to provide evidence. Even the debt clock that you cited undermines your own points.

 

CyberFly believes the trust fund actually exists. He honestly believes it is an actual account with actual money in it, even adding this inexplicable twist:

WTF?

Don't pop his bubble.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/12-01-04.html

 

The problem is not the way Social Security is structured. It was making more money than it was paying out before Ronald Reagan started dipping into the trust fund to pay for his "Star War" missile shield plan. If Republicans paid back what they have been stealing from it, it would be fully funded. When you borrow from a trust fund with no intention of paying it back (instead you privatize it) that is stealing. No structure will work if you steal from it and then blame Congress for the wars you declare.

You're a moron. What I said is true. Clinton's economic plan was working. The economy was strong, and Clinton had achieved historic budget surpluses. He used most of the budget surplus to pay back the Social Security trust fund (which Medicare is a part of). My having to explain this to you is proof that you did not do any research. Since Bush took over America now has record high budget deficits which means we are spending more money than we are taking in. Where is it going? Mostly to Iraq and the missile shield program that couldn't stop Timothy McVeigh.

It took two terms in office for Clinton to turn around Bush Senior's Recession caused by the first Gulf War. Al Gore promised to keep the Social Security trust fund in a "Lock Box" meaning that, like Clinton, he would not use it for other things such as military expenditures. The fact is that we did have extra money to throw around when Clinton was President, and he did use that money to pay back Social Security. Al Gore would have continued on that economic course but instead Bush changed all of that with a very different economic policy that has brought us back to his father's recession and historically high budget deficit. We would be in a lot better place right now had Al Gore continued Clinton's course.

No, the Social Security taxes being paid by workers is revenue going into the Social Security trust fund. From that same fund retired folks are paid. That fund between the two grows and shrinks. When Clinton when President it grew in size. When Both Bush's, and Reagan was in office it dramatically shrinks.

Man you are really stupid. Since Bush has taken over there are historic Budget deficit so yes the debt is going up. Had Al Gore gotten into office instead and not turned Clinton's historic budget surpluses into the historic budget deficits we see today, 6 years from this point in time the National Debt would be paid off or pretty close to it.

No it doesn't. Since Bush has been in Office, the Debt has gone up another 2 Trillion Dollars. Do you know how much interest taxpayers have to pay on that debt that republicans will not allow to go down? Everything Bush has given has been added to our debt and will have to be paid back with interest. Do you really feel you got your moneys worth in Iraq?

What evidence have you given to support your views Kandahar?

Fuck, finally someone with a brain! You bring up a valid point, which is supported by a reputable source!! Good job Madcap.

Everything in that BBC article is true but there is more to it than that.

It doesn't take into consideration the Social Security revenue from immigrants.

Also, if the Social Security trust fund was extended to 50 or say 100 years, the Baby Boomer cycle would end and the ratio of workers to retirees will change to a number that is not as bad. Even after 35 years the ratio of one retiree to every two workers will not be too likely.

Talk about intellectually dishonest. Your link says SocialSecurity.org but what it really is, is a link to the CATO Institute, which is a Libertarian piece of trash posing as an objective news source. It is no better than Fox News.

Actually the money from Social Security taxes purchases government bonds, which are guaranteed by the government that issues the bonds. That is why are National Debt is tied to this issue. Our National Debt are privately held Government Savings Bonds. The problem with turning Social Security into an actual privately held account is that it would be just that, privately held stocks. The Government backing and guarantee would be removed. When Ronald Reagan proposed getting rid of Social Security all together, a Democratic Congress would not allow it. There was uproar from groups like AARP. Now Bush is trying to slowly dismantle it by what he calls privatizing it.

Anyone who studies American history knows that the steady revenue retired people get from Social Security directly affects their lives and creates economic stability for the country. Disturbing this is just asking to return to the times of the Great Depression when stocks soared and then crashed. Millions starved because there was no retirement system, no jobs, no nothing.

If we flood the markets with these privatized accounts, the market could again soar and crash leaving millions with a worthless private fund and no job.

 

"Fully funded" (whatever that means) or not, it would STILL ULTIMATELY FAIL. You can throw all of the money you want down the toilet, but unless you change the way the system is structured it won't do any good in the long term. The biggest problem with social security is that the SS taxes you pay are not saved or invested for you; they're used immediately to pay out benefits to those who have already retired. In other words, there's never any money in the SS trust fund. If the system were restructured so that your SS taxes were invested, and eventually used to pay for YOUR retirement, it would be much more bearable.

No, no, I think you misunderstand the position of most of those who favor Social Security privatization. We don't want to deny the benefits to workers who have been promised these benefits; rather, we want to restructure it through private businesses who will operate it more efficiently, and give the individual worker more control over his finances.

Of course, it is a legitimate point that privatization will be expensive. But the cost of inaction is even higher. George Bush favors just borrowing even more money, which I'm against. I personally like the LP's plan: auction off some of our unused and unnecessary military bases around the world (estimated value: $10-50 trillion) and use the money to privatize social security.

I neither refuted nor supported your claim that the economy would be better if Bill Clinton or Al Gore was in office, nor will I. So you can keep up this line of arguing until you're blue in the face, but I won't be tricked by your attempts to steer the subject away from social security.

A quick look at the federal budget from ANY president in the last 40 years (including Clinton) shows outright fraud in accounting for social security. Social security expenses, for some reason, are not counted as part of the budget, but social security revenues are. There never has been, nor will there ever be, any kind of "lock box" for social security.

It doesn't change the fact that Bush is president now and we have trillions of dollars of debt. Keeping the sinking ship of social security afloat for a few more years should not be a high priority (or ANY priority) for tax dollars.

I don't know where you are coming up with this, but it is just false. There is no "trust fund" with money in it (and if there was, I would question why the government is paying high interest rates on the national debt while receiving much lower interest rates on this "trust fund," instead of just using the money to pay down the debt). There's not much else I can say about this point...you're just simply wrong.

Your hypothetical situations are irrelevant. STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Not true. While eventually the number of people reaching retirement age will start to decrease, people are going to live longer after retirement age. The average age of death in America is around 79, and it's increasing by several months per year. People my age might live well into their 100s. Even after the baby boomers have all retired, don't look for the retiree/worker ratio to decrease.

How the hell does handing out cash create "economic stability"? While many of them may depend on this money (and I'm sympathetic to that), you can't honestly believe that this is good for the economy as a whole.

 

No money paid into Social Security is flushed down the toilet. In fact all the money goes to a very good cause. It does just as the name says; it provides social security to retired Americans. There is no problem with the Social Security system other than Republicans steal from it by diverting money from the trust fund to military expenditures. People who get a Social Security check get real money from a real fund.

Prove it. Where is the evidence? You haven't provided any yet.

Bearable, what is that suppose to mean? I think retired folks are bearing their income just fine.

I understand it fine and it's bullshit. The stealing I was referring to had nothing to do with "your position". It is what Republicans have been doing when they take money from the Social Security trust fund and use it for anything other than those who are on Social Security.

I wasn't arguing, I was stating facts. It is obvious that you won't get tricked into examining facts.

Prove it. Where is the evidence? You haven't provided any yet.

Not while republicans have their way. As it is now, they raid it any time they want to. Again, that is stealing and has nothing to do with "your position".
How do you think Halliburton Oil is making so much money in Iraq?

Oh no, the priority should be to invade more oil producing countries right?

Who gives a shit about Grandma and Grandpa?

Prove it. Where is the evidence? You haven't provided any yet.

I am not changing the subject. I am showing you that we are moving in the WRONG DIRECTION. The subject is Social Security right? Bush is sucking it dry, raising the National Debt with his war in Iraq, and then saying, "We have a problem." No shit, the problem is not with Social Security, it is with the asshole in the Whitehouse.

Prove it. Where is the evidence? You haven't provided any yet.


Even if you could prove that people will live for hundreds of years, wouldn't that raise the retirement age?

It is good for the economy. Every dollar you give to those dependent on Social Security gets spent on something that has to be produced. Companies hire someone to produce it and profit. Another job becomes available and the worker that makes the product or provides a service for the Social Security recipient pays taxes and can afford to buy something as well.
During the Great Depression, many people could not afford to buy anything so production grinded to a halt. There was no mechanism to return money to poor and middle class consumers. I suggest you learn more about FDR.

http://newdeal.feri.org/



http://65.109.245.56/

 

No they don't. Its general government revenue, the same as any other tax money.

Duh. So we write ourselves an IOU. How is debt to ourselves a trust fund? Write yourself a check for a million dollars CyberFly, put it in a drawer, and then when you retire just cash it in! See the problem?

Well no, it wouldn't be, if you wanted to invest your privatised social security account in government bonds, you could. Are you just making this up?

Nobody has proposed eliminating the retirement systems or forcing everybody to invest in stocks. Come back to reality.

These systems exist in many other countries. Your scaremongering contradicts actual historical experience.

If this were true, then loading up airplanes with taxpayer cash and dumping it over urban areas would be good for the economy, because people would spend the money on things that need to be produced. This is beside the fact that the question isn't whether people should have retirement income or not.

You don't understand the difference between a "pay as you go" and a "fully funded" retirement system. These are specific terms with precise meanings used by economists talking about retirement systems in countries all around the world. Nobody would ever describe the US system as fully funded. The US is unmistakeably a pay as you go system, with current taxes paying current benefits, which entirely depends on demographics.

 

If both Social Security expenses and revenues were completely separated from the rest of the federal budget, wouldn't Social Security be running a hefty surplus that could theoretically be saved to ride out the boomer retirement? Wouldn't this also force Congress to use more honest accounting in figuring the true size of deficits in the general fund? It seems to me that creating a Social Security "lock box" might force a bit more fiscal responsibility on the feds.

 

It would, but it wouldn't achieve the most important benefit of privatisation - rather than having individuals pay their tax money into a federal "trust fund", why not pay their own taxes into their own individual trust fund? And then investing it as they see fit? You would have the potential, and judging from history the extremely high probability, of retiring much wealthier based on even a conservative investment strategy. For people who "don't want to manage their own retirement" or "don't understand it" or "want guaranteed security", they invest only in government bonds and end up right back where they started in the good old days.

Another thing is that the major change bush is proposing which increases the financial viability of social security is not privatisation but indexing to inflation rather than incomes. The old system guaranteed your retirement income would increase faster than inflation, so you would become better off as you age. The new system guarantees that you maintain your purchasing power. So I'm sure its more fun to get better and better off but obvsiously given the demographic issues, that was a little more generosity than the country could afford.

 

I would support this idea, but only after such a "lock box" were created to protect the money that has already been and continues to be collected through payroll taxes from being squandered in the overallocated general fund. I can't help being very skeptical of Bush and Greenspan when they favor irresponsible income tax cuts in a time of record deficits and then turn around and say that Social Security is unsustainable, when in fact it's the only federal program that has always run a surplus.

That sounds reasonable. I also think we should either remove the regressive cap on payroll tax rates or limit payouts to wealthy retirees. My rich grandpa, God love him, has collected far more than he ever paid into the system.

 

Good. I'm glad you finally admit that the money paid into Social Security is paid out to retired Americans, instead of put in a "trust fund."

I'm referring to the work force. The work force that produces everything the retired people (and everyone else) consume on a daily basis.

You can appeal to emotion all you want, but it won't change the cold, hard economic realities of social security.

Regardless of the asshole in the White House, social security will continue to be a problem until it is privatized, or the government defaults on its debt.

Wait...I thought you were against denying retired folks their benefits? Oh I see, you only care about "grandma and grandpa" when it suits your political purposes to do so.

Raising the retirement age is no different than reducing the benefits.

You REALLY need to take an economics course. That is a very warped view of the way a free market economy works. As someone else said on this thread, if that were true why doesn't the government just dump truckloads of cash in inner cities?

 

Well, instead of continuing to address every little bullshit comment, let me remind you republican ditto heads that you never responded when I asked for proof. Where is the evidence to your bullshit allegations? When I said retirees get real money you argue the point, yet they really do. It isn't my fault that you are so out of touch you don't know anyone living on Social Security. I know you may not believe it but the fact remains, retired folks are getting real money and spending it. Kandahar, where is your research? Where is your proof? You have offered nothing but right wing bullshit and opinion.

Now who is changing the subject? If you did a little research as to why Social Security was created to begin with and it's economic impact on the American economy, you would know that my "economic view" is a fact.

Bottom line, you are full of shit.

If you really think there is a problem with Social Security here is a easy fix.
Put a cap on monthly payments to the top, say 40% of wage earners. (I'm specifically thinking in terms of a dollar figure here.)

Anyone who makes over $200,000 a year after the age of 65 is Socially Secure enough and doesn't need a Government pension check (real money).

As it is now, millionaires who retire still get Social Security checks and bigger ones than the people who really need it. That is warped.

http://www.bartcop.com/121604lyons.htm

the Social Security surplus continues to accumulate and will for another decade. According to a report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will be selffunding at least until 2052, when projected benefits would begin to exceed revenue by a mere 19 percent—more an easily managed actuarial problem than a crisis.

A privately run insurance company with the same profile would be considered flush with assets.

So what’s the problem? Remember in 2001 when Bush argued that Clintonera budget surpluses belonged "to the American taxpayers—not to the government—and it should be returned to the people in the form of a tax cut"? He was wrong on both counts, economist Allen W. Smith writes in his pungent book, "The Looting of Social Security": "The money did not belong to the government or the general public. It belonged to the Social Security trust fund and to the hard-working Americans whose payroll tax contributions created the Social Security surplus."