Did you know that AARP is not really primarily concerned with Social Security? Neither did we. After all, the AARP partnered with us at Rock the Vote to defend Social Security as we know it.
But ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, it seems Rock the Vote has been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, the wool has been pulled over our eyes. We know this now because USA Next – the same reputable organization that brought us the Swift Boat Veterans ads attacking former presidential candidate John Kerry’s service in Vietnam – says AARP’s real agenda is anti-war and pro-gay marriage.
Not that we would have a problem with that agenda – we do not care who marries who, so long as they get Social Security. But here we were just assuming that the organization formerly known as the American Association of Retired People would be concerned with retirement. Go figure.
All kidding aside, of course AARP holds Social Security as a primary concern. Any insinuation otherwise is simply preposterous. It’s the AARP for goodness sake.
Unfortunately, this new ad from USA Next is just the tip of the iceberg in what is expected be a very a bitter barrage of attack ads and lies coming from pro-privatization advocates. These are the same people telling you their plan is good for you.
But we at Rock the Vote intend to make sure that young people do not let these attack ads stop us from losing the forest in the trees. Unlike those who want you to believe Social Security will self-destruct if we do not kill it first, we have the facts on our side. So rather than attack the privatization backers with some sort of crazy claim that they hate gay people or something like that, we will simply continue to display the facts. Facts like, under the expected proposal to privatize Social Security:
- guaranteed benefits will be cut significantly;
- the transition to privatization will skyrocket the national debt that our generation will inherit by trillions;
- Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security as a safety net insurance system to keep older Americans financially above water and independent – not as a risky investment system;
- those who are most likely to benefit from a private account investment system are the rich (who need a retirement safety net the least).
So as you see, we do not need to throw low blows – the facts hit hard enough.
For more information on the USA Next attach ads and a healthy dose of Social Security humor (always a sure laugh), check out the Daily Show clip “Anti-Social Behavior.”
posted by Miles Granderson
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen
 |
Rock the Vote Bio: Rock the Vote was founded in 1990 to organize artists and fight against censorship of musicians. Since then we've evolved to focus on empowering young people to get involved in the political process. We use pop culture, peer-to-peer organizing, and the latest technology to raise visibility of politics and demystify the process of registering to vote. @rockthevote Email the author at: blog(at)rockthevote.com |
First, PRIVATE ACCOUNTS WILL BE OPTIONAL!!!!
Second, nobody is saying private accounts are the entire solution to making Social Security, which is a huge Ponzi Scheme. It is part of the solution and will benefit young people by enabling them
- earn a higher return on their money, than the governments 1% and sub-zero return in the future.
- it’s your money that you can pass on to your kids
And to respond further,
# guaranteed benefits will be cut significantly;- They are guaranteed to be cut in the current system unless taxes are raised. Do you want to count on a future gov’t to raise Social Security taxes from around 6% to 20%?
The cuts in benefits are more than offset by your return from the private accounts. PRIVATE ACCOUNTS ARE OPTIONAL!!!!
* the transition to privatization will skyrocket the national debt that our generation will inherit by trillions;- We’re in a pickle because of the Social Security Ponzi Scheme. So no matter what we do, the gov’t will have to eat some of the transition costs.
# Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security as a safety net insurance system to keep older Americans financially above water and independent – not as a risky investment system;The first part is right, the second part is a dumb inference. You’d be more accurate saying, “not as a money losing Ponzi Scheme”.
# those who are most likely to benefit from a private account investment system are the rich (who need a retirement safety net the least).That is a outright lie! Young people will benefit most since their money will have a longer time to grow versus older people who will still get a better return but not benefit as long from compounding interest.
I cannot believe this blog is allowed to publish this fraudulent material. Young people know better than to let the gov’t control your money any more than it has to.
Read an article on how dishonest Rock the Vote is
and read this one:
READ SOME FACTS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY CHOICE from people not controlled by the liberal left (the left who want you to be dependent on
government so you’ll vote for them.)
Government has broken the Social Insecurity promise long ago. Its time to stop the bleading! The promise was that we would never pay more than 6% (employee and employer contribution), we now pay over 12%.
—-
From The Advocates for Self Government:
Government Reneges on Social Security Promises
Libertarian economist and syndicated columnist Walter Williams uncovered somefascinating nuggets in a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security.
First, this quote from the pamphlet:
“After the first three years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. … Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. … And finally,
beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. … That is the most you will ever pay.”
Here’s what Williams has to say about that:
“Had Congress lived up to those promises, where $3,000 was the maximum earnings subject to Social Security tax, controlling for inflation, a $50,000-a-year wage
earner would pay about $700 in Social Security taxes, as opposed to the more than $3,000 that he pays today.”
Another quote from that same 1936 Social Security pamphlet:
“Beginning Nov. 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. … The checks will come to you as a right.”
Wrong again. William notes: “First, there’s no Social Security account
containing your money. But more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments…”
The bottom line? Williams puts it bluntly: “If a private retirement company reneged on its promises, we could take it to court. If Congress reneges on its promises, there’s no judicial course of action whatsoever.”
(Source: “The Social Security Deceit,” Walter Williams column:
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050223-082150-8590r.htm )
Well d’uh — OF COURSE AARP is about retirement. Specifically, AARP is about getting more in benefits from Social Security than they paid in Social Security taxes — and handing the cost of those additional benefits to us young people through reduced future benefits for ourselves and higher Social Security taxes (that will make it harder for us to take care of our future families and plan for our future retirements).
And, Rock the Vote just happily dances to the AARP’s tune.
I’m amused with the claims that personal accounts are what will lead to reduced Social Security benefits, and that personal accounts would create all these new debts when in fact creating the accounts would create no debts that are not already going to occur because of Social Security’s unsustainability. These are just two more examples of Rock the Vote’s willingness to twist the truth and outright lie in order continue depriving young people control of their own lives.
Once again, why is Rock the Vote so afraid of giving people a choice. And why is it so afraid of even a remotely honest discussion of this issue? Huh Hans?
Its amusing to see someone who treats others contemptuously and thinks of himself as so highly informed actually so ignorant.
Eat this Anonymous (see previous threads):
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/01/18/cuts_in_disability_ben
efits_seen_in_social_security_plan/
The story discusses how advocates of privatization like to say that disability and survivors will be safe but actually never actually put any money on the table to protect those benefits—and how the changes in the benefit formula will also affect those programs, negatively.
The simple fact is that when you take money out of Social Security to create private investments you create a crisis in all of the programs and cuts are a serious risk.
As for the question about participation, the reason that we assume people will participate in the accounts is because they will be massively penalized for not participating. The cuts that privatization would cause to Social
Security apply to everyone, even if they don¹t take an account. The account is the only way you can hope to make up the difference—but it won’t be sufficient for millions of people.
In the end, your proposal is just about shrinking government on our backs, by taking money out of our pockets–the youth of America.
Go away.
And Ryan, for all of your time spent spinning on this blog you have yet to address the fundamental philosophical question: Should all American workers be guaranteed a roof over their head and food on the table after a lifetime of work? And please, don’t play semantics games with guarantee. Instead, talk about the risks involved in the market vs. rock solid US Treasury Bonds. Yes, some people will win big in the stock market but others will lose big. Aren’t we all degraded if elderly people are forced into poverty?
BTW- Libertarians: you’re fighting the wrong battle.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/
articles/2005/01/18/cuts_in_disability_
benefits_seen_in_social_security_plan/
Sorry Dream, but you seem to be pulling a Paul Krugman — citing a source that supposedly supports your argument when in fact it does not. (At least you’re not as bad as Paul, who cites as support sources that say the exact opposite of what he claims.)
Here’s the core sentence of the article:
QUOTE
Retirement and disability benefits are calculated using the same formula, so if future promised retirement benefits are cut, then disability benefits also would be reduced — unless the program is somehow separated.
UNQUOTE
Good so far. But notice the DI problem is not a financing problem, but simply a programming problem. That’s easy enough to fix. And the various private account bills circulating around town make explicit that changes to DI, SSI, and Widows & Orphans is off the table. Again, this is about (and only about) OAS.
But, ignoring that point, why would Social Security benefits have to be cut? Because of personal accounts? The author seems to think so, but no. As has been argued elsewhere (definitively IMHO) — and I am happy to repeat the argument in this thread if needed — the creation of personal accounts have no long-term financial effect on Social Security.
So, why would disability and other Social Security benefits be cut? Because the system is not financially solvent over the long-term. Personal accounts have no effect on that (though they certainly have a positive effect on us participants).
Perhaps, Dream, you may dispute the notion that Social Security is not solvent over the long-term. If you do, then all the better — you should have no concerns about DI or about the effects of personal accounts.
I am amused at your comment about libertarians. Once again I ask, what is your fear of giving people a choice? What is Rock the Vote’s fear?
And, for that matter, why is Rock the Vote afraid to host an honest debate of this issue?
umm Ryan – thanks for the laugh. I love that you direct us to Fox News and The Club For Growth for some “facts” about “choice”. Funny how the same people don’t always like choice.
Anonymous – Who is afraid? Aren’t we having an open discussion right now? Actually, you have yet to answer the big question although I’ve asked it several times.
Should all American workers be guaranteed a roof over their head and food on the table after a lifetime of work? Is this a fundamental right that should be safeguarded by our government?
Ryan-
Maybe you should stop getting your news from only Fox and you’ll get the facts straight. Private Accounts will be optional but everyone will still receive benefit cuts to assure that benefits are still being paid. Take a look at Chile. They started optional private accounts in the early 80s. Now people who are retiring are making significantly less money from their private accounts then people who stayed with the old social security program. It was good for the government’s market but bad for the people. They started this program when they were in a SURPLUS. Something that the Bush adminstration seems to know how to drain at a rapid rate.
My problem is the continuous deceit that is masqueraded a great deal. If personal accounts are truly “voluntary,” then don’t talk about re-indexing Social Security to prices instead of wages. That takes “voluntary” and makes it a sucker deal for anyone who does not want private accounts. The younger you are, the more your benefits will be reduced over the long term. If you are trying to get all American’s to value a proposal don’t hide the facts. If you continue to hide the facts, don’t complain when the majority of American’s aren’t on board. This is a complicated issue that deserves a real dialogue, not pie-in-the-sky promises.
Stay tuned DREAM, I’ll answer your “Big Question” in a moment. But first, I need to address a couple of incorrect/incomplete understandings.
JALEXAN’s comment suggests (thought the writer does not say this explicitly) that Social Security benefit cuts are needed to finance private accounts, and the writer explicitly states that account-holders will be immune to the cuts. Both of those notions are false. If Social Security structure is maintained, the system WILL have to implement large tax increases, benefit cuts, or both. That is because of dramatic shifts in U.S. demographics that are the result of longer life spans (thanks in large part to better nutrition and medical advances) and to U.S. families having fewer children than past generations. The benefit cuts/tax increases are necessitated in order to make Social Security solvent, not to finance accounts. And, whether a person stays in the traditional system or exercises the personal accounts option, all SS plans that I’ve seen mandate that each person accept the financial hit from the tax increases/benefit cuts in order to make the system solvent.
KIKI makes a smart move in looking to Chile’s experience with private accounts. Chile was the very first of what are now 18 nations that have some form of private accounts. (China and Russia will soon join the list.) The full list is:
Chile [1980]
United Kingdom [1986]
Australia [1992]
Peru [1993]
Colombia [1994]
Argentina [1994]
Uruguay [1996]
Mexico [1997]
Bolivia [1997]
El Salvador [1998]
Hungary [1998]
Kazakhstan [1998]
Poland [1999]
Hong Kong [2000]
Sweden [2001]
Dominican Republic [2003]
Slovakia [2003]
India [2004]
KIKI asserts Chile has had a bad experience in switching from a paygo SS system to a private accounts system. In this, the author echoes claims that have been made by Paul Krugman. However, the data don’t support that claim. Krugman, in making his assertion, buttressed his claim by citing (indirectly) several World Bank analyses of various Latin American private pension programs. But Krugman did not give careful study of those reports, because they paint a very different image of Chile’s (and other nations’) experience than what he conveys. The Chilean system was extremely insolvent and, though in mild surplus at the time of the reform, was soon to go dramatically into the red. If that system had continued, beneficiaries today would be receiving far less than what the private accounts system & recognition bonds provide. It is true that Chileans who stayed in the Chilean SS system now receive even better benefits than many who have private accounts. But that’s because the conversion to a private accounts system enabled the Chilean system to become solvent, and there is significantly more money to divide between beneficiaries now than there would have been if Chile had stayed with a paygo system.
The key point is this: Not all Chilean retirees are doing great, but they’re doing better than if the nation had maintained its paygo system. And that’s the key point.
And now to DREAM’s question, which is:
Should all American workers be guaranteed a roof over their head and food on the table after a lifetime of work? Is this a fundamental right that should be safeguarded by our government?
In asking this, I assume he’s asserting that the current Social Security system makes this “guarantee” while having a private accounts option would not. Of course, both of those conjuncts are false — the current system offers no such guarantee while the various private accounts proposals I know do each have “safety net” provisions. As I’ve argued elsewhere on this site, Social Security is neither legally compelled to offer benefits (let alone benefits that promise a roof and food) nor is it economically able to deliver on that guarantee over the long haul. (Curiously, many of the people who are defending the traditional system were previously lamenting how terribly low Social Security’s benefits are — e.g., “seniors having to eat dog food because of their low benefits.” Were you one of those people, DREAM?)
So, DREAM, I answer your question thus: I oppose a traditional Social Security system that legally DOES NOT make such a guarantee, that both legally and economically CANNOT make such a guarantee, and that MANDATES everyone participate in it, to the detriment of their own efforts to ensure a decent living after a lifetime of work. I support a system that gives people increased ownership and control over their retirement finances.
DREAM, however, seems to despise the latter system but loves the non-guaranteed, non-sustainable, mandatory former system. Praytell, why?
Anonymous – Leave all the assumptions aside and please, answer my question first. Yes or no, should it be a fundamental right for all Americans to have a roof over their head and food on their table after a lifetime of work? (How many times do I have to ask this question to get a straight answer?)
If your answer is yes, then, we need to concentrate on fixing Social Security, not dismantling it. If your answer is no, then, full steam ahead to the risky business of privatisation. THEN, we can agree to agree/disagree on a philosophical matter that has been hotly debated since FDR.
Also, I don’t despise “increased ownership and control over retirement finances.” In fact, I think that the government should encourage MORE private investment in the form of tax deductible IRA’s and Roth accounts BUT only if there is a safety net! Remember my personal story about being caught by that safety net you say is non-existant?
imtheamericandream – some safety net. Social security taxes drain citizens of money they could be using to save for retirement. Want to encourage more savings in IRA’s/Roth accounts/401K’s then have the government stop taking 12% of my wealth.
Social security tries to be too big of a safety net, with all falling through the net. Scale it way down and allow those who don’t need it to opt out.
Wow, there is an excellent social security calculator at http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity
I put in my data and I would be WAY ahead if I could invest the money.
I then called a friend of mine, who at the age of 51, only makes about $20,000. Even he would do much better off without social security.
Right now the money he is paying into social security will most likely be thrown away. He is not in the best of health. He would be much better off if he could invest the money and buy life insurance (real insurance!).
Damn big government statists are really destroying the lives of people of all socio-economic classes.
Dream, your question is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Regardless of whether there is or isn’t such a right, a public pension system with personal accounts should be preferred to the current paygo system.
If there is “a fundamental right for all Americans to have a roof over their head and food on their table after a lifetime of work,” then a public pension system with a personal accounts option (and means-tested safety net) should be preferred because it does a better job of advancing that right than paygo Social Security.
If there is no such right, but people believe there should nonetheless be a public effort to improve seniors’ living standards post-retirement, then a public pension system with private accounts should be preferred because it better advances that goal.
You seem to believe that a fully socialized public pension system is the way, and the only way, to secure the “fundamental right” that you assert. This is simply false–such a system does not secure that right, and I believe does a worse job of promoting that right than a private accounts system.
Indeed, various public functions that have been established to secure positive rights have a dark history of delivering. From U.S. public schools to Canadian health care to North Korean food, socialized systems cost too much and deliver too little.
And that leads us to a fundamental insight into your question: it’s too simplistic. It speaks of a right to “a roof over one’s head” and “food on the table” after “a lifetime of work.” But you define none of those parameters. We could reengineer the current paygo Social Security system so that it would provide those rights idefintely — but I suspect we wouldn’t like how it would do it. As I noted in a previous post, until now the biggest complaints about Social Security arehow lousy its benefits are, how poorly it corresponds to people’s individual life conditions, and how negative its effects are for current workers. But the system does provide catfood for every table and a roof over one’s head, so long as the beneficiary reaches the legally mandated retirement age.
That “securing” of a right is pretty pathetic — something akin to saying I have freedom of speech so long as I keep my speech to myself. Personally, I have higher expectations both for my freedom to speech and my retirement. So how come everyone must be compelled to accept your conception of what it is to secure that right, even though people have very different ideas of what that right is, how it should be secured, and to what degree?
BTW, here’s the latest health reading on the system that supposedly “guarantees” the fundamental right to post-retirement food and shelter:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/social_security_10
Interesting material in 3/23 San Francisco Chronicle on the AARP’s latest position on investment and Social Security:
QUOTE
The volatile debate is yielding some strange overlap between the two sides. In January, AARP ads compared private accounts invested in the stock market to gambling, but Tuesday AARP policy director John Rother proposed that the government invest part of Social Security payroll taxes in the stock market to gain a higher rate of return, an argument identical to the one Bush is making for private accounts.
Rother told a conference hosted by the centrist New America Foundation that what he called “collective investment,” an idea proposed by former President Bill Clinton in his aborted 1999 effort to address Social Security’s funding problmens, was “quite popular” among AARP members when they are confronted with the alternatives of raising payroll taxes and cutting benefits.
UNQUOTE
So, it would seem the AARP (with whom Rock the Vote is partnered on this issue) is quite comfortable in investing Social Security money in the stock market; they just don’t like giving people ownership over their own Social Security money. Hmm, I wonder why….
Anonymous and r. edgar – who do you work for and what are your agendas. you seem to have a heck of alot of time on your hands to spin, deceive, and outright lie.
no, i don’t support “a fully socialized federal pension system”. can you friggin read, nimrod? how many times do i have to say that it is absolutely necessary for individuals to invest; the govt should even encourage it but not administer these extra savings.
there is no crisis, so why rush into anything? check out the spin on the actual numbers for SS solvency
you’re living in a fairy tale land if you don’t think that SS is a safety NOW, has been for 70 years and will continue to be so indefinetely. go out into your community and meet some pensioners. maybe if you broke away from your computer occasionally you could actually talk to some real live people who depend on SS and will tell you straight up that they don’t have the time, knowledge and/or inclination to deal with a private account. Or talk to average work a day Americans and ask them how they feel about the burden of privatisation.
http://www.slate.com/id/2114263
minor point, but valid and since you’re always accusing me of taking away “choice” from Americans and thus implying that I’m somehow undemocratic.. oh and wait now, even though I tear up when I stand at the Lincoln Monument and served my country faithfully in the USMC, I actually have a devious agenda bent on ruining the country.
YES – we should be teaching every last person to save more money and invest wisely, but only above and beyond a safety net, whether its SS as we know it or some other public trust mechanism; find some way to finance changing the “pay go” system without passing on the debt to my children and I’m with you.
You won’t answer my question because you simply don’t care about fundamental rights. Anon, you don’t care about honest dialogue or the rule of reason, or the future of this country – you serve a despicable master=Money, Power and Misinformation. Your sophistry does not, at the end of the day, accomplish anything.
r. edgar – shame on you for that heritage foundation calculator. if you’re going to retain any sort of intellectual standing, you should probably give a list of all of the different calculators out there. there are hundreds of assumption being made in every calculation, not to mention the ups and downs of the stock market (think long term here people… is the market infallible for eternity? blasphemy!)
There are fundamental rights in this country. Read the Bill of Rights if you’re having problems defining them. I simply suggest that we strengthen our social fabric by including more rights.
Anonymous – your sophistry is
revolting, “That “securing” of a right is pretty pathetic — something akin to saying I have freedom of speech so long as I keep my speech to myself. people have very different ideas of what that right is, how it should be secured, and to what degree?” Next step is Fascism of the lowest common denominator. Go read your primary sources about the foundation of our democracy and feel shame for selling out the soul of our grand experiment.
BTW everyone, my animosity for Anonymous stems from the fact that elitism drips from his/her (probably 55yo white guy planted by the Charles Schwab) every word.
Oh, c’mon DREAM, you can admit the real reason for your animosity, as it transcends your post: you hate people who express valid arguments contrary to your position. That’s why you can only throw around conspiracy theories and ad hominems at people with competing viewpoints instead of arguing this issue on its merits.
For people who are serious about this issue, today’s lead editorial in the Washington Post is terrific:
washingtonpost.com
Dishonest Debate
Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A18
ONE CAN DEBATE the merits of creating personal accounts in Social Security but not the case for fixing the program’s solvency problems. Over the next 75 years, as the Social Security trustees reported on Wednesday, the program has a projected deficit of $4 trillion; the longer the nation waits to address this problem, the nastier the tax hikes or benefit reductions that will result. But that’s not the impression conveyed by some Democratic leaders. The trustees’ report, according to Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), “confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans.” The senator’s desire to score political points is understandable. His willingness to do so by implying that Social Security is healthy is not.
Democrats defend this opportunism by saying the president is worse. President Bush, they complain, is talking up an alleged Social Security “crisis” in order to ram through an unrelated proposal to create personal accounts. But, in addressing Social Security, Mr. Bush is taking on an issue that the Clinton administration also regarded as important; he is not inventing a problem. He can be faulted for not specifying the benefit cuts or tax hikes he favors to restore solvency, but at least he acknowledges some will be needed. In that context, personal accounts are not irrelevant; they involve risks, but they are potentially a way of cushioning the necessary benefit cuts in the traditional Social Security system.
Democrats are right that the Bush tax cuts have created a much bigger crisis: Their impact on the deficit over the next 75 years, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, is about three times greater than the Social Security shortfall projected by the trustees. It is also true that Medicare poses more of a problem than Social Security. Mr. Bush dodges that larger problem, pretending that he put Medicare on the road to reform when, in fact, he and Congress mostly added to its fiscal problems by creating a new entitlement for drug reimbursements. But it’s hard to take seriously the Democrats who say that Mr. Bush should switch focus from Social Security to the much bigger problem of Medicare: If they aren’t willing to play a constructive role on the supposedly “minor” challenge of Social Security, why should anyone believe that they would behave constructively if the administration wanted to fix Medicare?
The nation faces a severe economic threat from the aging of its population combined with escalating health costs. The sooner it begins to grapple with this problem, the less painful the solution will be. For Mr. Bush, that would mean acknowledging the need for more revenue. For the Democrats, it would require for a smidgeon of honesty about Social Security’s state.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
imtheamericandream said:
“who do you work for and what are your agendas. you seem to have a heck of alot of time on your hands to spin, deceive, and outright lie.”
I’m a computer programmer, my agenda is a better life for me, my children, and our country. Could you be more specific about my lies and deceit? Exactly what did I lie about?
You criticized the heritage foundation calculator. Could you be more specific? They are pretty open about their calculations. Surely you must have more to say. They are certainly more open, accurate, and honest that the bogus cepr.net. cepr.net uses bogus financial numbers: account fees enormously higher than industry norms, lower than normal financial returns (a diversified account will provide extremely safe investing with high returns, see http://osa.leg.wa.gov/Historical_ROR.htm and http://www.gbophb.org/invest/performance/pdif.html ) and gives very little insight on how they do their calculations. They also list non existant fees (try doing a google search on “annuitization fee”)
Know of any other calculators we can discuss?
I talk to people all the time, including those now dependent on SS. My father is stuck living on social security. For him it was an ok deal, he paid much lower rates that what young people are paying today. He still would have come out ahead if he had invested that money. However, young people today are getting ripped off. I don’t want my children forced to support me when I get older.
Its easy for you to say that you support investing, but when the government takes 12% of your pay in SS taxes, 15-20% of your pay in federal income taxes, 5-10% in state taxes, 4-6% in sales taxes, 6-10% in property taxes, and increased costs of goods due to taxation it leaves you with very little left to invest.
Many of these taxes are regessive. Social security taxes insure that the poor don’t invest and that they can’t build up equity that they can leave to their children, ending the cycle of poverty.
You asked –
“is the market infallible for eternity? blasphemy!”
Who knows. All we have to go on is past history. And past history has shown that the market provides a much better rate of return than social security. There have been ups and downs, but the downs have only been temporary. Over the past 100 years the market has been infallible.
Proper planning will prevent problems with the downs of the stock market. Anyone close to retirement age should move their funds into safer (although not as well performing) funds.
History also has shown that whenever the social security ponzi scheme is about to fall down, politicians raise the tax rate on all people. See http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
This history shows that the SS Ponzi scheme is falliable!
You said:
“There are fundamental rights in this country. Read the Bill of Rights if you’re having problems defining them.”
Which one of the Bill or Rights specifies that government should be taking peoples wealth, spending lots of it on unneeded government programs, and then returning whats left of it to the people to secure their votes?
“R. Edgar said…Wow, there is an excellent social security calculator at http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity
I put in my data and I would be WAY ahead if I could invest the money.
I then called a friend of mine, who at the age of 51…”
sorry guy/gal, but that sounds like a paid political advertisement to me.
I don’t have the time to research different calculators, because yes I have a job too. I also don’t have the time to investigate financial vagueries for a plan that DOES NOT exist.
I point out the specifically delineated rights in the Bill of Rights to prove the point that we COULD guarantee a standard of living for all WORKERS. Why the selective editing????
I addressed the Washington Post editorial in the next posting. Basically, this is only one proposed solution to the SS problem, Why can’t we talk about the others?
I’ll keep saying it until this issue is put to bed,
1)There IS a problem with Social Security that must be addressed; but it is not a crisis situation.
2)Medicare, Education and Iraq ARE crisis issues
3)”Privatization is NOT a solution to the SS problem”, says Pres. Bush (emphasis added:)
4) Less government, please. Less bureaucracy, please. Less corporate power, please. More local community control, NOW.
imtheamericandream said:
“I don’t have the time to research different calculators, because yes I have a job too. I also don’t have the time to investigate financial vagueries for a plan that DOES NOT exist.”
Well based on your posts you do need to spend the time doing research. I’m trying to argue facts, and research is part of that. How can we debate the merits of various solutions if you can’t/won’t present any proof of your arguements. Your posts are like saying the sky is green, and then when asked to present some sort of proof, you say that you don’t have time and that your opponents are liars.
“I addressed the Washington Post editorial in the next posting. Basically, this is only one proposed solution to the SS problem, Why can’t we talk about the others?”
Which others? I’m open to talking about anything. Just present the facts.
R. Edgar – allow me to repeat “I don’t have the time to investigate financial vagueries for a plan that DOES NOT exist.” DOES NOT EXIST! THERE IS NO PLAN SO WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE DEBATING?
The other solutions? Do your reading of past posts. I happen to think that the best one is raising the income tax cap from its current cap of $90K. Over the past 40 years the gap between the richest Americans and the poorest Americans has grown exponentially. Consolidation of wealth is afoot and the problems with SS are only a minor symptom of a much larger disease.
Can we at least agree that the Administration, as well as most respected economists in this country, have stated that private accounts will not solve the problems of Social Security??
“Can we at least agree that the Administration, as well as most respected economists in this country, have stated that private accounts will not solve the problems of Social Security??”
No I don’t agree. While I would agree that there will be some short term pain in converting to private accounts (not the vague personal accounts touted by Bush), in the long run converting to private accounts will solve all of the problems of social security. Real private accounts will let even the poor save for a real retirement with the ability to pass money down to their heirs, ending the cycle of poverty. Continuing the pyramid scheme will only hurt those you think you are trying to protect.
Who the other guys are in bed with? How about, who you are in bed with–the AARP. Of course the old people want to keep social security as is. They’ll get something out of it. It’ll be bankrupt by the time we can join AARP.
Dream- Where in the constitution does it say that it is the job of the government to provide a roof and food for every citizen? Where is this a right?
Social Security as generated by Roosevelt would have worked just fine if it were not for the Left breaking it with Abortion.
As soon as the Left drove the Abortion and Birth Control agenda, population growth rates crashed and made Social Security impossible to sustain.