The Democrat who Republicans most love to hate, Seattle’s own Congressman Jim McDermott, is now “the world’s least senior blogger.” Check out is diary on dailyKOS, “Social Security: Don’t buy the Fear Factor!“
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
well…I read the words of our esteemed Congressman. lots of criticism of Bush as usual. but a virtual complete lack of a “fix” for SS. “with minor adjustments…”
I await hearing about these “minor adjustments”. I read democrats’ criticisms of Bush’s and other conservatives thinking on SS. what I await is a DEMOCRATIC offering of a fix. if it is so easy, shouldn’t a Congressman like JM have a plan? weren’t we all raised to have an alternative to others, not JUST criticism?
I suspect we have no democratic suggestions because the “minor adjustments” will not be popular. raising the retirement age, the payroll tax, cutting benefits, etc. such adjustments have HAD to be made to Social Security repeatedly in its history. the original payroll tax was 1% originally and now it is what, 12.4%, counting the employer ?
I would like ONE democrat to offer an actuarial “fix”. things need changing. if not privatization, which at best is only a partial fix if stocks do well, what then? I consider McDermott GUTLESS to just criticize without doing the HARD thing: telling people that some painful adjustments need to be made. I see McDermott as AFRAID to propose raising the retirement age or cutting benefits. all he says is “minor adjustments”. easily said. but cowardly…
tell us the DEMOCRATIC fixes that are so “minor”. risk loss of some votes by being truthful that SOME may see a true fix as more than “minor”. you don’t like what my guy Bush says? fine. he sure isn’t winning the PR war. but I still await the DEMOCRATIC fixes. all I hear is the problems are minor and far off. going net borrowing in 2018 doesn’t seem all that far off to me.
by the way, I expect the same of Bush. HE hasn’t offered anything like a full fix either. but he DID have the guts to raise such a contentious issue.
I think Jim oughta put his (personal retirement) money where his mouth is and call for the folding of the TSP (gov’t. employees’ Thrift Savings Plan) money back into Social Security.
I agree with marks. why is it just fine for all federal employees to have an investment type account but us having that same privilege is not ok? I would like Jim Mcdermott to answer that.
Also, when the D’s were in charge of congress for 40 years, [b]why[b] did they start borrowing from SS Trust? It seems this is one of the biggest problems with it now.
You guys why is all right to borrow many trillions of dollars we don’t have to expose your fellow citizens to equities risk? With no way to guarantee the current level of current benefits.
I don’t know the history of why federal employees don’t pay into social security. Perhaps some historian out there can fill us in.
I find it really funny that you guys are going at McDermott for not giving a detailed plan when Bush repeatedly insists that he doesn’t have one either. If Bush wants to go around screaming chicken little when we have much more pressing concerns, then the least he could do is actually lay out his plan first. Then perhaps we could get around to criticizing the response. Nah… that would be logical.
w(h)ine@3 Do you really want to bring up fiscal responsibility arguments here with your guy “borrow and spend” Bush? I personally don’t like mortaging our future to China and Japan, but hey, if thats what you think is best for America then who I to argue?
it is ok to borrow because the money is owed later anyway. some $7 TRILLION is not funded. borrowing now reduces those future obligations by more than dollar for dollar. unless you think stocks will do poorly, in which case MANY other funding problems will arise. besides, it is a CHOICE if one privatizes SOME of their SS, per Bush.
but fine if you do not like Bush’s ideas. how long will it take for ONE democrat to voice THEIR ideas to fix the enormous actuarial shortfall? or will they just continue to pretend not fix is needed?
is the democratic party only to exist to say: “whatever Bush said, I disagree”. maybe just one democrat might have the guts to state that the “fix” will have a bit of pain ?
Nindid @ 5
According to you, neither Bush nor McDermott have a plan. Right? If that is the case, what is McDermott’s beef? If it is whether or not SocSec is in trouble, that is a matter of semantics and something on which reasonable people can disagree without scaring senior citizens into believing that Bush is going to steal their money and invest it in lumber mills. As I understand the numbers, SocSec will be handing out more than it takes in around 2014 or so. The choice is whether we fix it now or if we keep up the Ponzi scheme in hopes that it’ll pay off before we die.
Rush @1,
I think many Democrats have been very open about what they suggest as potential fixes that would keep SS in the black for another 75 to 100 years: raise or eliminate the cap on income on which SS tax is paid, raise the retirement age, and means test benefits. You do all three, and you only have to do each a little bit to get decades more SS surplus.
The fact that none of this are particularly popular, doesn’t make them unsound.
Ooops! The above was in response to the following remarks by chardonnay @ 3:
Also, when the D’s were in charge of congress for 40 years, why did they start borrowing from SS Trust? It seems this is one of the biggest problems with it now.
And the number one point of all this is: bush’s “MUSINGS” on s.s. , have absolutely zip, zero, nada, to do with fixing the shortfalls, in s.s.
His “NON-PLAN”, is nothing more than an attempt to get the s.s. program shut down, something republicans have been trying to do since the 30’s.
You could also ask why bush raided a trillion dollar surplus from s.s. in 2001 to fund tax cuts for the rich.
federal workers DO pay into, and receive Social Security. TSP is an ADD-ON, not a replacement.
TJ is exactly right. Please read this for a thorough debunking of the right-wing myth about the “magical” government pension:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp
McDermott made a very significant point in there. Something of which I have yet to hear made as clearly as he did.
He said s.s. after 2050, will still be able to pay 80% (i believe its more like 77%).
This is if we let it go without any changes being made.
Now thats a long way from what bush is trying to scare people with. Bush says “FLAT BUSTED” in 2050. He is lying when he says that, and he knows it.
Now why would the pres. of the u.s., lie to the public?
It comes easy to him.
Remember, this is an old game to him, he one time sold stock in loser companies for a living, so he is at home trying to slip one by here.
Goldy – It’s also possible that not only is their no impending crisis, but there’s no reason to make any changes. Remember that the predictions for requiring trust fund money in 2018 and then the reduced ability to pay out full benefits from payroll takes in 2042 are based on pessimistic assumptions about future economic growth. However, if GDP and productivity growth continue at a more optimistic pace than the SS trustees’ most pessimistic vision, there will be no shortfall at all.
So if we have the kind of positive economic future envisioned in any plan that supports high enough rates of returns to make privatization a reasonable choice, SS will also be solvent for the next century – so no reason to change the safety net SS provides.
If we want to tweak 401k and IRA rules, I’m all for it. I certainly take advantage of those tax-free/deferred accounts, and enjoy the fact that the contribution limits have been raised significantly.
I’m far more worried about Medicare and private healthcare costs, which are quite rapidly becoming a massive portion of GDP. That’s a bigger threat to economic growth than a SS problem that won’t occur until 2042 under the most pessimistic of predictions.
good point, cricket–15 years ago, the trustees envisioned not being able to pay 100% benefits in 2037. So in fifteen years, not only are we not 15 years closer to that situation, we’re five years FURTHER AWAY.
just for laughs, in 1978 Bush claimed SS would be bankrupt in ten years.
At Josh Marshall’s TPM he also points out that the Republican’s “sky is falling” routine about Social Security is nothing new.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c.....php#004992
To follow-up my own post, I always get a laugh when I read something like this …the [trust] fund will contain nothing but the government’s promise to pay
All government bonds work this way, it’s not like an IOU from Cynical after a nite in Las Vegas where he drunkenly swears “I’ll pay yoush back mannn, I sshhhwears it!”
If Republicans are going to really going to claim that government bonds (the trust fund IOUs) are worthless then our entire economy’s going to fail, and we’ve got bigger problems to worry about than only being able to pay 80% of SS benefits.
Its sure nice to hear from people that dont have their heads in the sand. You watch faux news, or got to unsoundpolitics, all you’ll hear about s.s. is that the commies(dems) arent doing anything about it.
Rational people instead of chicken little gw sheep.
agree with you Diggindude, lil gw should just ask his families best friends, the saudi royal family to bail out social security like they have bailed out this ‘fine businessman’ all of his business life
None of you people seem to be adressing the fact…yes fact that the population because of lower family birthrates due to family planning, abortion and such things, combined with people living longer than ever in history due to better living and medical science, we are heading for an eventual train wreck without major reworking of the SS system. The Bush plan is a start, it has to eventually happen. I dont care if you say 2030 or 2060, the system will not stay afloat. Anything less than recognising this fact is like going full speed on a bridge that isnt completed on a rainy nite with your headlights off not knowing where the big drop will happen, and turning on your wipers to fix the problem…that is the democrats answer, turn on the wipers and it will save us!
Chuck @23 If you want to worry about a train wreck check out Medicare. That is a crisis that is happening RIGHT NOW and Bush is simply passing the buck to the states. If this was not simply am ideological attack on SS, he might have credibility. It is, and he does not.
Mark @2 I don’t think that Congress pays SS, but Federal Civil Service employees do, just like everyone else. They do have the option of a Thrift Savings Plan account, but the money they elect to put in their is theirs – so you’re wrong to suggest that they should “put it back”
Nindid @5 What the president has done is make some suggestions as to what he would like to see – primarily to get Congress to do something to work out a solution to this before it gets any worse. The Congress has been talking about this impending “crisis” for at least 20 years – and Republicans are not the only ones who have referred to it as a “crisis.” When those Treasury Bonds come due, who will pay them? You say the federal government – but where do they get ‘their’ money? They can print more (inflation), or they can raise taxes. Cuts in benefits are a given, regardless of anything else.
Diggindude @16 So it’s perfectly okay with you that all future retirees will automatically receive a 20-23% cut in SS benefits? It seems to me that if we allow younger workers (i.e. future retirees) to put a portion of their SS into a private account (after all, the “trust fund” takes in billions of dollars more than is currently being paid out) they would have to do better than what SS pays now – let alone a 20-23% reduction from current benefit levels.
jcricket @17 The assumptions about when SS runs out of money are based the SS Administration (http://www.ssa.gov) actuarial forecasts, not on “pessimistic assumptions about future economic growth.”
I believe that it will take some combination of adjustments such as a small raise in the cap, basing eligibility on life expectancy, and gradual cuts in benefits as we increases the percentage paid in to personal accounts – all of these can work together to create a more viable option for the future. Personal accounts don’t ‘fix’ the current SS solvency problems -the whole idea is to reform the system to make it better. More of the same, in the long run will only result in more of the same.
Only a fool continues doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
I seriously doubt that most of the posters here will spend any time at all reading anything written by anyone considered to be “right wing”, but if you should happen to be interested, try:
http://www.socialsecurity.org (CATO Institute) or http://www.heritage.org (Heritage Foundation). Let’s see how truly open minded you are.
I have trouble understanding Bush’s claim it’s a crisis that SS payouts will exceed income by 2014(?) and the trust fund will be bankrupt in 2042 when he does not seem concerned that the federal expenditures currently exceed revenues and there is a significant (Bush created) deficit right now.
Can someone explain that to me?
k @ 26
“he does not seem concerned that the federal expenditures currently exceed revenues and there is a significant (Bush created) deficit right now.”
Obviously, there are multiple problems to be solved, not just the deficit, not just SS.
I remember (back in the late 90s) listening to financial analysts talk about the “Dot Com bubble” and the effect that it would have on the economy when that bubble burst.
After Sept 11, there were many dire predictions about what would happen to the US economy because of the terrorist attacks. What would happen to the airline industry? What would all of the ‘ripple effects’ be – it might be “devastating” to the economy some said.
Whether you agreed with the war or not (and I’m sure most of the posters here don’t), things are improving in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There is good news in the Middle East. Did we pay a price for the war? Yes, we did.
Have you looked at the economy lately? Have you looked at any of the good news about the economy? Or are you simply looking always for a way to bash this administration?
K B – Congress does indeed pay SS at the same percentage the rest of us do. The link I provided earlier states this, quite unequivocally – http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp
Secondly, your state that “the assumptions about when SS runs out of money are based the SS Administration (http://www.ssa.gov) actuarial forecasts, not on ‘pessimistic assumptions about future economic growth.'” – The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The actuarial forecasts are based on pessimistic assumptions about the future growth of the US economy – namely that productivity and GDP growth won’t continue on the current path. An optimistic forecast would be that productivity and GDP will grow at a greater rate than they have historically. A neutral forecast would mean identical growth predications.
Moreover, if those pessimistic forecasts are right, and other historical precedents hold (which the predictions are based on), the stock market won’t provide enough returns (stock market growth has historically been tied to productivity and GDP growth) for private accounts to make up for any funding shortfall in SS.
The short of it is that SS is not in crisis and won’t be in crisis for at least another 40 years. And even when it’s “in trouble”, it’s not catastrophic. Besides, the transitional funding alone for the private accounts will create more than $10 trillion in additional debt in the next 50 years.
We have far more critical problems to “fix” to just in this decade. Better to focus on the current deficit, Medicare, exploding private health care costs, funding for education, etc.
(sorry about the excess bold there)
To be more direct, why is a predicted shortfall in the future of more consequence than an actual shortfall right now? Why are they not talking of the immediate issue?
And I do read the news and never fail to note that the cost of the war is not incouded in budget estimates. We did pay a priice, why don’t we recognize it?
jcricket @28
My comment was in response to Mark @2
The Snopes.com article you refer to says the following:
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. …
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us … then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.
The retirement plan that the Congress receives, that’s referred to in this article is NOT the TSP! Current Federal Civil Service employees pay into SS, and will get out of it whatever anyone else in SS will get out of it. Their TSP accounts are like a 401(k) that they pay into. Most Federal Civil Service employees don’t get anywhere NEAR the kind of retirement that Congress gets. I agree – I don’t think that a person who serves – even as little as ONE TERM in Congress, should get such an outrageous retirement payout.
jcricket@28
What your reference fails to mention is the fact that congressmen can also, AND MOST DO pay into SS for the last year before they retire and collect FULL SS bennies.
jcricket@28
The short of it is that SS is not in crisis and won’t be in crisis for at least another 40 years. And even when it’s “in trouble”, it’s not catastrophic. Besides, the transitional funding alone for the private accounts will create more than $10 trillion in additional debt in the next 50 years.
We have far more critical problems to “fix” to just in this decade. Better to focus on the current deficit, Medicare, exploding private health care costs, funding for education, etc. >>>>>
Thanks for turning the windshield wiper on so we can see out the dark windsheild again!
Goldy @ 9
Sorry I came in late. What you are purposing is a band-aid we need something permanent that will not have to be rethought every few years. SS is a gaping wound that needs serious medical attention. It’s not sound if we are going into the red even just a little bit in the next decade,I am not saying that Bush has got it down pat but we need to stitch and maybe even cauterize the wound that DOES exhist.
Chuck @33
I don’t know where you get the statement “transitional funding alone for the private accounts will create more than $10 trillion in additional debt in the next 50 years.”
You insist that there is no problem with SS, but what do you base this on. What will the additional debt be when the SS Special Treasury Bonds come due? Yes, yes, I know…these are government bonds, and as long as the US government is solvent, they will pay them – but where does the money come from? Thin air!? The TBonds are not an asset in the way they are being used. When the bonds come due they will have to borrow more money to pay for them, or raise taxes, or ?????
The estimates I have seen (CATO Institute, Heritage Foundation) are that the Private Account transition costs are more in the neighborhood of $2 trillion, but even if it’s more, once that cost is paid off, the Personal Accounts will provide a better return. I understand that if the market doesn’t do well, the return won’t be very good – but if the market does that poorly, SS won’t do very well either. Are you saying that over the long term, SS as it exists today will pay more than investing in accounts (set up like a 401(k) or the TSP)? Do you invest any of your money in a 401(k)? Why shouldn’t people be allowed the option? It is their money, after all.
K B@35
Read it again, that part was copied from jcricket@28, I was simply making comment on the statement he made.
Adriel @ 34
SS is a gaping wound that needs serious medical attention.
Based on what data? Please cite.
It’s not sound if we are going into the red even just a little bit in the next decade,I am not saying that Bush has got it down pat but we need to stitch and maybe even cauterize the wound that DOES exhist.
If you buy what Bush says..we won’t be in debt by the time SS starts paying out more than it takes in with revenue.
Chuck @ 36
I stand corrected. I should have referenced my post to jcricket @28. :-}
“problem, what problem Carla” even your fellow Dems say that in 2014 it will only be able to pay out a maximum of 80% of the benifits it needs to pay out, so are we going to borrow money to pay benefits later or fix the problem today?
Carla@37
What part of the math dont you understand, smaller families due to lower birthrates combined with people living longer than ever in history (and continuing to live longer due to medical science). This is basic math.
TJ @ 14
Don’t ever let it be said that I won’t admit that I was wrong. Reading deeper into the subject, it now appears to me that the TSP is a 401(k)-esque add-on. You’re right.
Interesting stuff I found “along the way,” though…
McDermott has trouble managing his TSP account and thinks that average Americans couldn’t handle it. (2002 Congressional hearing statement)
Some of the semi-privatization proposals are only talking about 5% or so of the SS money going in.
and… a little Jeopardy for fun:
A: “[a system] in which money paid by later investors or contributors is used to pay inflated returns to earlier investors”
Q: “What is… _________________?” Social Security??
That would be “What is a Ponzi Scheme,” Mark.
Main Entry: Pon·zi scheme
Pronunciation: ‘pän-zE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Charles A. Ponzi died 1949 American (Italian-born) swindler
: an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks
From Mirriam-Webster online
mark @ 41
if there’s a proposal that uses only 5%, I haven’t seen it. Most call for about 2/3 of the employee tax being diverted, and some Congresspeople are on the record wanting even more. And why the hell is the EMPLOYER side not being touched?
Have you ever heard of a ponzi scheme that was backed by the full faith and credit of the largest central bank on the planet?
It’s worked like a dream for 70+ years. That’s some genius, that Ponzi.
Rush @ 1
If it ain’t broke, why “fix” it? As Paul Krugman has pointed out, under any set of economic assumptions that makes Bush’s “solution” workable, there is no Social Security problem.
Rush @ 7
Democrats reject the GOP assertion of a “huge actuarial shortfall.” When we look at the assumptions and calculations underlying this argument we see the smoke and mirrors so typical of the “Math President.” In a word, it’s partisan bullshit.
“What me, back up anything I spout?” Adriel @ 39
Please back up your assertions with a link or do you even know how?
Don how far is your head up there?…read facts not indoctrination. SS is a powertrip by Democrats. The only reason there still is a Democrat Party is because of Roosevelt and SS, That is why they are so terrified of Republicans having a better idea. They are afraid that if Bush suceeds that he will efectively become the Roosevelt of our time, and that footholds on social issues will shift.
John @ 46
HERE DUMB ASS, from your link.
“Based on long-term economic projections, the Social Security trust should be fine for 50 years or so. ****At that point, some experts project that the number of people retiring will demand more money than payroll taxes can provide.****”
KB
bushs plan does nothing to fix s.s.
Once you realize this, you will be better informed.
Even when s.s. is reduced to 77% in 2050, the retirees will still be making more than they do today adjusted for inflation. See?
Bush doesn’t want you to know this, he wants you to believe it is bust.
You check it out, see if what im saying isn’t true.
S.s. will be cut no matter which way you go. Morre under any kind of plan like bush is pushing.
After all the scaring is over, s.s. will be able to provide at least 77% of what it pays now.
And that will continue from that point forward.
That is if we do absolutely “NOTHING”!!!!!
From the CATO Institute, Daily Debunker, March 4, 2005
http://www.socialsecurity.org
The Cato Institute’s Communication Director Jamie Dettmer responded in a letter to the editor, which was published in today’s Times.
“Paul Krugman is talking through his hat when he claims that the Cato Institute is unprepared to explain Social Security transition costs or how the reformed system would work (‘Kansas on My Mind, column, Feb. 25). Hasn’t he read more than 20 years of detailed scholarship on the subject undertaken by Cato scholars?
“The merits of individual accounts are indisputable, and the intellectual argument for reform is compelling. That is unless, of course, you agree with Mr. Krugman that it is sensible to push payroll taxes ever higher, deprive Americans of better returns on their retirement savings and refuse to accept the principle that people have the right of ownership over what they pay into Social Security.”
Touché.
Diggindude @ 49
Once you realize this, you will be better informed.
I don’t know how much time you have spent getting “informed”, but I’ve been educating myself about this issue for more than 20 years. President Bush didn’t invent this issue, or the numbers to support his assertion. I’m not an economist, and won’t pretend to be some kind of “expert” (whatever that word means to you), but I do plan to retire someday (soon), so I’ve been paying attention.
Even when s.s. is reduced to 77% in 2050, the retirees will still be making more than they do today adjusted for inflation.
By definition, ‘inflation’ means that dollars will not be worth as much in 50 years – so how does a 23% CUT plus inflation equal retirees making more than they do today???
And that will continue from that point forward.
That is if we do absolutely “NOTHING”!!!!!
Yeah, right. That’s what the politicians (primarily Democrats) have been telling us for years. Meanwhile, the amount that working people pay into SS increases, and the age of eligibility goes up.
You go right ahead and believe what you want – you’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t share it.
BTW, that doesn’t make me uninformed
torridjoe @ 43
Have you ever heard of a ponzi scheme that was backed by the full faith and credit of the largest central bank on the planet?
It’s worked like a dream for 70+ years.
So, you believe that because the Ponzi Scheme is being perpetrated by the government, and they’ve managed to keep it propped up for 70 years, with each succeeding generation paying more – somehow that makes it okay????
Adriel @ 47
Those sneaky Dems sure fooled me! I was convinced most of them support SS because they don’t want to starve in their old age.
ADriel @ 47….wow, you really are in a cloud. The chance of a swindling, lying, cheating hack like GW being compared to Roosevelt makes my eyes tear……wake up to the real world, not your head in the sand lifestyle you seem to drivel out all the time
Adriel @ 48
Not to worry, we’re going to run out of oil before we run out of SS money. So, civilization as we know it will have ended by then anyway. No problem.
kb @ 52
each succeeding generation gets more, too. I think that’s OK, yes. And it would appear a large majority of Americans think it’s OK as well. Whatever Americans think about Social Security, it is now painfully clear that they’re pretty sure they don’t want what Bush wants.
Horse’s Ass Adriel @ 48
I quote YOU:
even your fellow Dems say that in 2014
Back that up!
Ah, the lightening rod of SS…what a topic! And leave it to dear old Jim to stir the pot some more.
I have a couple of questions.
I believe most folks will agree that 2012-2014, SS will have to start cashing in those suddenly worthless Tbond IOUs currently occupying the *lock box*, right?
What would happen to all those projections if Congress passed a law today that any monies collected in the name of SS from this day forward would ONLY be used for SS payouts with the leftover going to extend the timeline some.
How much longer would the SS system work as it is now if Congress suddenly stopped spending the monies collected for same on their pork?
Question 2: Since the upper layers of income earners benefited so much from GW’s infamous tax cuts, would they be willing to lift the ceiling on SS to help compensate? It is war time and all…perhaps it would be the right thing to do for their country?
Course that depends on how they envision their country, doesn’t it?
Chuck @23,
You know, there are other possible solution to fixing Social Security. We could relax our immigration laws to bring in a new generation of workers to support our retirees. Or we could take the “Solient Green” approach, and turn our unproductive old people into tasty, nutritious crackers.
Adriel @34,
Keeping SS solvent for the next 75 years is not exactly a band-aid.
G Davis – (I know you were being sarcastic), but the initial date when the IOUs may start being tapped is now 2018. If the economy returns to better times, it may be pushed out later (as seems to happen every 5 years or so when we re-evaluate our economy). And the date at which the IOUs run out is 2042 (or later).
That’s a _long_ ways away, with a lot of “future” between here and there. I simply see no reason to consider scrapping (yes, that’s what privitization is) the most successful, well-funded retirement security program for a potential minor problem that’s 50 years out.
Let’s focus on getting out of Iraq (safely), bringing down the deficit now, fixing Medicare, helping our kids get more out of school, etc.
It’s just like personal finance – you can’t ignore retirement, but if you can’t afford to eat now, it doesn’t matter how much you have saved in your 401k or if you’re picking the maximally profitable mutual fund.
Goldy – Soylent Green is made of Republicans!
guess i’ll be a vegetarian then.
jcricket…sarcastic? Me? ;0
My point was Congress initially made this mess by spending the monies collected for SS on their supercilious pork spending. GW comes along and grants inordinate amounts of tax cuts largely favoring the top of the pyramid. The collective chickenhawks have to start a war and volunteer to pay everyone’s way in it.
SS is not in crisis…government spending is in crisis as you’ve said.
The quickest *bandaid* would be to immediately stop spending the money collected for SS on anything other than SS.
The next quickest *bandaid* would be to get the economy working again as the quickest way to rejuvenate revenue. One end to that would be to solve the health care true crisis as you say. I can hardly wait to hear the hyperbole over Medicare when these stooges finally wake up to the shape it’s in, not to mention when all we baby boomers start seriously ailing.
I do understand the situation. It’s the undoing of the New Deal. Even Adriel intimated the Dems would be nothing without FDR and pals and their demon social programs! ;0
Goldy’s tasty, nutrious crackers is an alternative to all the mess isn’t it though. ;0
Goldy @ 59
Ok maybe that wasn’t the best analogy lets try again. A guy on a road trip stops to get a bite to eat, the owner of the diner asks him where he’s headed he replies he’s headed up the road to his favorite vacation cabin. The owner suggests that is a bad idea and certainly won’t get him where he needs to go, in fact he says that he heard a rumor that the bridge was washed away. A guy from the town says bologna there is no way that bridge is so strong my daddy built it. Driving down the road looking at signs that say bridge out ahead and he ignores them remembering the proud gentleman at the diner,he keeps on driving. The closer he gets to the bridge the faster he drives getting more and more arrogant with every passing mile, seeing no indication of washed out roads or bridges even though passing more signs. Right at the bridge he notices it is in fact washed out and he should have listened to that man 75 miles back down the road. He finds it is too late and he was too stubborn with his gas pedal to the floor, his car is launched into the muddy river and his lifeless body is swept away from the wreck by the current.
Adriel – What a perfect analogy for Bush, the Republicans and their complete inability and unwillingness to take advice from anyone except those that confirm what he already knows (sounds like the BIAW too). Any time the facts contradict you (abstinence studies, asbestos problems, lack of WMDs, etc.), just drive faster.
Cricket @ 65
Facts and opinions are two diffent things but obviously you don’t care, “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up” -Arrogant liberals motto
You create a lengthly analogy that you think proves that SS is in trouble and somehow disproves Goldy’s point that keeping SS solvent for 75+ more years is “good enough for now” and you’re lecturing me about facts and opinions?
Let’s quote from your friend Tom McCabe: ““Scientists say that you shouldn’t do an experiment if you have a conclusion already. I had a conclusion. I thought they had cheated.”
Try again.
it wasnt a very good analogy at that. it would be more relevant, if he were walking 75 miles to the bridge.
adrielee @ 66….. OMG, I always thought that was you and your repugs motto….wow how times are a changing…LMAO@U
you know, some lefty needs to do a story called “Why Jim McDermott?” I know you guys can do better for a congressman
RICHARD B. YOUNG
20 NED’S POINT ROAD
MATTAPOISETT, MA 02739-2165
(508)-758-3533 FAX 758-6189
e-mail dickyo@aol,com
April 28, 2005
SOCIAL SECURITY NEEDS FIXING TO SAVE ITS SOLVENCY
Social Security is in the need of overhaul. We must be concerned that privatization is very risky, will not be understood by beneficiaries, and will lead to trillions of dollars in additional government borrowing – we can’t afford that
One way to reduce the outgo without hurting those who need it would be to Means Test benefits.
Social Security has done a great job of saving millions from poverty. The system is actually a welfare program paid for by taxing the poor working people with no deductions, and paying benefits to all over 65 whether they need it of not. It certainly is not an insurance program as advertised. The FICA tax is not a premium being paid to build assets for retirement. 95% of all the taxes collected pass directly to beneficiaries, and very soon it will be over 100%.
One proposal for Means Testing provides for:
Giving 100% of regular benefits to all beneficiaries who have income $75,000, or less.
Giving no benefits to those with income of $100,000, or more
Beneficiaries between those limits would have their benefits reduced proportionally.
In 2040 the Trust fund would have $3.75 trillion rather than being bankrupt, and it would save $12 trillion by 2075. There is no transition cost, no tax increase, and those who need help would get it.
Social Security was designed to prevent those who have not or could not provide for their old age from becoming destitute. There is no sense in taxing the present working people to provide benefits to wealthy retired people who do not need help. This makes more sense than higher taxes for high income employees.
Advantages:
No Transition Cost
No reduction of benefits for those who need it.
No increase in tax for employees
Beneficiaries who could not, or had not, provided for their old age would not become destitute
Workers would not be required to pay to give benefits to the wealthy.
RICHARD B. YOUNG
20 NED’S POINT ROAD
MATTAPOISETT, MA 02739-2165
(508)-758-3533 FAX 758-6189
e-mail dickyo@aol,com
April 28, 2005
SOCIAL SECURITY NEEDS FIXING TO SAVE ITS SOLVENCY
Social Security is in the need of overhaul. We must be concerned that privatization is very risky, will not be understood by beneficiaries, and will lead to trillions of dollars in additional government borrowing – we can’t afford that
One way to reduce the outgo without hurting those who need it would be to Means Test benefits.
Social Security has done a great job of saving millions from poverty. The system is actually a welfare program paid for by taxing the poor working people with no deductions, and paying benefits to all over 65 whether they need it of not. It certainly is not an insurance program as advertised. The FICA tax is not a premium being paid to build assets for retirement. 95% of all the taxes collected pass directly to beneficiaries, and very soon it will be over 100%.
One proposal for Means Testing provides for:
Giving 100% of regular benefits to all beneficiaries who have income $75,000, or less.
Giving no benefits to those with income of $100,000, or more
Beneficiaries between those limits would have their benefits reduced proportionally.
In 2040 the Trust fund would have $3.75 trillion rather than being bankrupt, and it would save $12 trillion by 2075. There is no transition cost, no tax increase, and those who need help would get it.
Social Security was designed to prevent those who have not or could not provide for their old age from becoming destitute. There is no sense in taxing the present working people to provide benefits to wealthy retired people who do not need help. This makes more sense than higher taxes for high income employees.
Advantages:
No Transition Cost
No reduction of benefits for those who need it.
No increase in tax for employees
Beneficiaries who could not, or had not, provided for their old age would not become destitute
Workers would not be required to pay to give benefits to the wealthy.