Social Security Reform

[BOSSHOG]

Conservatives would have us believe that the way to "save" Social Security is to privatize it and put money in the stock market. Or to put it another way, subsidize the likes of Halliburton with government assistance via private accounts. Would some Historian help me out here. Wasn't one of the parents of Social Security the Stock Market crash of 1929? Would privatizing social security today and putting it helter skelter in the stock market be cannibalism or incest?

[sam sarrha]

1. SSI is good for 70 yrs as it stands..the greedy Fuck's cant leave it alone

They feel that the poor deserve their status and they are privileged by the grace of god, and we are suffering because we are not favored by god.. even though they are not religious. justifies their cruel scams

Wake up America we have a Moron for president.. he started the war so no one would criticize him.. this way an criticizing will hurt out troops whom his ignorant policies are killing daily.

[K-W]

2. Social Security Reform is a fairly unveiled attempt to do the following:

1. Bankrupt social security by deficit spending on the reform.
2. Give big cash handouts to financial and other corporations.

It doesnt relate to the stock market crash because they have no intention of this actually working. They know full well that they are setting SS up to fail.

[nodictators]

3. Bush is planning to STEAL our retirement money

A recent CBO study estimated that the Social Security trust fund would last until 2052 if nothing is done. After that, there would still be enough money flowing in to pay 80% of the promised benefits.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5530/06-14-SocialSecurity.pdf

Bush just rejected the suggestion to increase the FICA tax a little bit to help correct the modest shortfall after 2052. That idea would be a lot less costly than his crooked scheme.

Bush has stolen TWO presidential elections and the Iraqi oil fields. Now he wants OUR retirement money too!

[Ira]

4. Bush is recklessly rushing the nation to private accounts

The original Social Security bill was passed during the Great Depression of the 1930s following the stock market crash of 1929.

Bush is again playing on the fears of the people that there will not be a social security pension when they get ready to retire. Baloney.

There is no doubt that the system needs to be adjusted, but not by borrowing $1 trillion dollars so that management of social security funds can be turned over to Wall Street. There are lots of fixes available that do not carry that risk.

First, if we do nothing to the system, the pensions are paid out of payroll taxes coming into the system for another 20 years, and paid from the trust fund for another 30 years after that. So there is no need to rush a radical change into the system.

But social security reform is good, and polls tell us that 70% of the electorate support changes to the system. But we don’t have to gut the system to reform it.

For example, if the maximum income subject to payroll tax withholding is raised to $150,000, the system is solvent for another 80 years.

Or, the system could be made solvent for the foreseeable future if the payroll tax rate on both the employee and the employer were cut in HALF, but applied to ALL earned income, including stock option compensation.

Or if the tax structure remains unchanged and the wage indexing formula was gradually adjusted on how the starting pension is calculated before it begins to escalate with inflation during the remaining life of the retiree. This could be done in a way so that no one’s promised pension is threatened and you get a good 100 years of financial stability in the system. This was actually a recommendation (along with private accounts) of the bi-partisan commission on social security reform that Bush appointed in 2001. Privatization appeals to the Republican base so that is what is now on the table.

The optimal solution is probably a combination of the above or other ideas. And maybe private accounts have some small place in the structure, but I doubt it.

What is very important though is that we as a nation do not rush to change the system just so Bush can fulfill a campaign promise. He is approaching social security reform in the same irresponsible way that he rushed to war in Iraq, stirring up the fears of the populace and increasing our nation’s debt to pay for it.

[TahitiNut]

5. Un(der)employment is the greatest threat to Social Security

As we go a decade without an adjustment to the minimum wage, as we suffer under a Busholini Regime that has eliminated over ten million people from the workforce, as we go eight years with steadily decreasing real value wages for the bottom 90% that's transforming the U.S. into a banana republic with a Gini Index of 0.45 ... the policies of the Cheap Labor Profiteers running our Plantation Economy pose a far greater threat to Social Security than any other.

Social Security depends on a fairly-compensated workforce in which Americans are broadly enfranchised. The Busholini Regime is an implacable enemy of Labor. Overtime compensation? As it's reduced, so are OASDI/HI contributions. In every respect, these people are waging war on workers and retired workers -- all for the sake of the God of Greater Profits (robbing labor of the wealth they create).

A Full Employment and Fair Compensation policy would, with a small upwards adjustment of the age of eligibility, be quite sufficient to guarantee the health of Social Security for the next century - a future greater than its life so far.

[Calmypal]

6. Are you kidding?

http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp32.pdf Social Security> is a house of cards.

[TahitiNut]

7. Cato Institute propaganda

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Michael Tanner is director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Choice and editor of Social
Security and Its Discontents: Perspectives on Choice (forthcoming).

Conclusion

More and more Americans agree on the importance of allowing younger workers an opportunity to privately invest their Social Security taxes, but advocates of individual accounts are divided over how large those accounts should be. Some proposals that call for large accounts have very large transition costs, which makes their political viability suspect. Other proposals are relatively less expensive but give workers control over and ownership of only a small portion of their retirement funds. We believe that it is possible both to have large accounts and to be fiscally responsible. This proposal is designed to meet that goal.

The proposed Social Security reform would restore Social Security to long-term and sustainable solvency and would do so at a cost less than that of simply propping up the existing program. It would also do far more than that. Younger workers who chose the individual account option could receive retirement resources substantially higher than under traditional Social Security. At the same time, women and minorities would be treated more fairly, and low-income workers would be able to accumulate real wealth.

Most important of all, this is a proposal that would give workers ownership of and control over their retirement income. It is a plan that puts people, not government, first. It is a plan that is fiscally responsible and protects future generations of workers and taxpayers.

BULLSHIT!!!

[TahitiNut]

23. R.I.P.

Eulogy:
Here, dear Lord, lies another mental (and moral) defective who (proudly, alas) lacked both the logical reasoning skills and critical reading skills needed to overcome prepubescent emotional atrophy, to identify fallacies, to detect a con job, and to form a coherent, ethical perspective. They also serve who merely provide bad examples for others. Amen.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

10. How nice that your parents and grandparents died young

... and never needed your support.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Jose Diablo]

21. Houston real estate developers?

Are you sure you are a Democrat? Self employed, own a construction operation or are you one of those developers that contract construction companies? Ever slip a 50 to an inspector? Do you hire workers without documentation? I imagine theres a lot of that in Houston, being close to the border and all.

As for getting nothing in return, well you get a disability if you are injured or cannot work due to sickness, for your lifetime. You also get some money back in the retirement portion.

Compare what you pay for disability insurance through an insurance company and compare that to SS. I am sure the insurance is cheaper, but you know why? Because insurance companies say they will pay 50 or 75% of the base pay but only after subtracting your SS disability. For example, say you make $3000/month and get permanently disabled. Now after 6 months SS kicks in and say it pays $1500. You know how much the insurance disability kicks in at the 50% rate? Zip, Nada, nothing because SS is already paying at the 50% rate.

As for 15%, you are close but no cigar, some goes for Medicare. Whats that, 3% or so. I believe the current retirement, disability and survirors rate is 12.3%.

Haow much of that private account will be left after your fund is staked to the ground and the Wall Street predators eat it during the periodic Republican gutting stages.

It is interesting that peoples retirement savings got wiped out in 1929 and they demanded a government guaranteed program rather than depending on Wall Street for savings. I think this fact is lost on many because they think they know all about profiting on Wall Street. All thats really needed to know about Wall Street is that big fish eat small fish. When the Republicans get in office and appoint their head regulator to the SEC, then all the protections small investors have through oversight and regulations somehow go out the window. "Everybody is overworked". Uh huh. Would you like to buy a bridge?

I really think you took the left door, when you should have taken the right.

[Jose Diablo]

22. Dang, I miss him already n/t

[Ira]

24. The view of the deleted posting

I see the post from the private account supporter has been deleted. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Democrats that hold the same mistaken view that derives from fear of not having anything when they retire or a belief that they can invest the funds and have a larger retirement than a normal Social Security check. This emotional view is very politically powerful and is the reason that Bush is pushing his agenda now.

Social Security, when it was originally passed in the 1930's when starvation was a problem, was never considered a retirement fund owned by each citizen. It was and still is a basic, guaranteed retirement pension (average check is less than $1000 per month) that provides every elderly person with a minimal ability to survive. It was never intended to be an IRA or 401(k). And payroll taxes are just that -- taxes. They are not private deposits into your personal savings account. But most people's thinking on this has been changed by the Republicans and the financial media.

There is no question that funding formulas in the system DO need to be adjusted, but private accounts are not the answer. Unfortunately, there is a lot of momentum behind the Bush proposal. Polls say 70% of the country favors private accounts. So the posting that was deleted expressed a majority view of the country, not a minority view.

[JanMichael]

9. The SS attackers are LIARS. Professional fleecers of the PEOPLE.

The ones in the WH are liars. Not sure about the ones here on DU... Maybe they just don't know the meaning of what a Trust Fund is; Don't understand that this is a manufactored "crisis"; Don't "get" how SS works in relation to the Federal Budget...

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/120704.html

"The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem."

"But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year."

[UdoKier]

11. I agree that what the Giggling Murderer© is trying to do is criminal...

But I don't understand why you would dignify what they are doing by referring to it using THEIR spin of calling it "reform". It is not reform. It is a scam to steal billions to give to corporate America and add to our already huge debt, and to bankrupt the last vestige of the New Deal, social security.

The Repiglicans have despised it since it came into existence and have always wanted to destroy it, despite their occasional phony rhtoric to the contrary.

"Death Tax", "Tax Simplification", "Social Security Reform", etc - DO NOT USE THEIR phony buzzwords.

It's an estate tax, regressive tax cuts for the rich and a Social Security Gutting Plan.

[UVASAM1]

12. admittedly, i know little about this issue

but if these type of accounts are so bad, why did Moynihan endorse them or recommend them? Wasnt he extremely liberal?

Either way, we had better come up with a viable alternative to the proposal. Bush is going to push this, and we're going to get some type of change to the system. I have no idea if our party even has an alternative. I've never heard it.

[TahitiNut]

13. "viable alternative"?

How about keeping the system as it is, with a small increase in the retirement age as life expectancy increases?

[UVASAM1]

14. from what i've seen

that's not nearly enough to deal with the problem. plus, isnt it already at 67 an phasing up to 70?

[TahitiNut]

15. It'll be 67 for boomers. No further increases are yet enacted.

I'd guess "what (you've) seen" is corporatist propaganda. A critical read of the Trustee's Report might be appropriate.

[Robbien]

17. Even Neil Cavuto sees this is a public trust give away to corporates

Today (December 9, 2004) on Your World w/Neil Cavuto, during one of his regular roundtable discussions, this time on Social Security "privatization," Cavuto turned to guest Jordan Kimmel of Magnet Investment Group and said:

"Jordan Kimmel, if we start seeing that , that's a lotta money that makes its way to guys like you right?"

http://www.newshounds.us/

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. SS is solvent into the next 20 years or so..If Americans weren't so

uptight about immigration, then allowing for immigration would make up the alleged differences in the work force as boomers retire and the work force shrinks.

The only thing threatening social security is the fact that Reagan drained it for star wars and Bush drained it for Iraq...convenient, eh?

The only thing Bush doesn't explain is how the government will continue to function with so much less revenue coming in since the government uses that money then issues bonds to cover it...more debt as far as the eye can see.

[TahitiNut]

18. Solvent for (worst case) forty years.

For a program that's only been around for 70 years, predicting doom in 40-50 years seems to me to be pretty good. If they make a small increase in retirment age and go back to a fair employment policy, it's good forever.

[Yupster]

19. Privatization won't happen because it is

too expensive.

The only way it could possibly happen is if their is no alternative from the Democratic congressional blocs.

A bad idea will beat no idea most times.

Social Security is fine until 2018. At that point we will have to send out more than we take in each month.

That shouldn't be a problem until 2040, because we've been overpaying and saving the extra money to use in the lean years from 2018 to 2040.

Unfortunately, we have spent the money that we were supposed to be saving, so in 2018, when it's time to start tapping the reserves, we will notice that there are no reserves.

You can continue to say things are fine until 2040, but that's assuming the reserves will be there which is a joke.

It's like telling your wife that your retirement will be fine because you're saving $ 400 per month. But you don't also add that your brother is spending the money each month as soon as you save it, so there is no money saved up. You can keep saying you're fine, but it's a charade.

There are many possibilities for fixes that would be better than privatization. Almost all of them would pass instead of privatization.

Doing nothing is the one strategy that could make privatization happen.

Reasonable fixes which would defeat privatization...
1. Slowly raise retirement age like done in 86
2. Slowly reduce cost of living raises
3. Slight raise in payroll tax (only if extra money is really saved in cd's away from congress's reach)
4. eliminate the ceiling on FICA taxes
5. Force teachers and other government workers who opted out of social security back into the system.

[mandyky]

20. We need to not let them say reform

They are privatizing it, pure and simple. They are doing it to let Wall St. rob folks blind. Baby Boomers better start raising hell!