How do you respond to this right wing talking point about Social Security?

[ButterflyBlood]

I've heard it quite a few times, but I can't deny that it IS a valid point.

Basically, they bring up people who die before they turn 65. Those people paid into Social Security all their life, and then they don't get any of it back, and neither does their family. With private accounts that wouldn't be a problem since their family could access the account.

This IS a problem as I see it, but privatization is not neccesarily the only way to fix it. What would you propose?

[begin_within]

1. How many people has this happened to?

[NJCher]

2. people pay for insurance and sometimes never use it

That's part of the system. It's the motivation for profit for the insurance company.


Cher

[amazona]

3. but the family does get it!

My friend's father died when he was in high school. His mother did get monthly Social Security checks, not just for herself as the widow, but for each of the children until they were of age. She had poor health and could not work, so it made all the difference for them. They were even able to keep their house.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[CaptainCorc]

7. Nice and right on :) n/t

[joefree1]

11. PLUS there's disability credits

I'm looking at my social security statement and I get credit if I become disable too. If I die my family gets survivor benefits.

So I guess that right wing talking point is total bullshit. Surprise, Surprise. :)


Download the free PDF letter size art here:
http://www.ediablo.com

[leftyandproud]

22. So you die at 60...before collecting a penny..

your kids are grown and your wife has a job...

You have paid into the system for almost 45 years and you get...

$0.00

[mikehiggins]

24. And you're dead so you don't really give a shit anymore

The concern of the right wing with the poor and oppressed worker who might not see a return on FICA is heartwarming as a little puppy.

And just like a little puppy, they are frequently full of shit.

[natureman]

4. I wish the democrats would respond

We have no unified national voice. It's very disappointing.
Bush is creating another crisis. The debt is more important to
me. We can not sustain the permanent tax cuts and pork that is being handed to corporations. We fix those things and SS will be fine. Democrats fall right in line with the Republican talking points over and over and over again.

[ET Awful]

5. Actually, that is incorrect.

There are payments to their surviving spouse in many circumstances, along with their minor children.

[Vincardog]

6. Check aWoL's plan. There is no survivor benefit or will able interest

The plan is that you invest your money. The company does not have top match. When you retire the government gets the first 3%. That is right you only get to get the benefit of the amount over 3%. They you cash it in and pay 50% in taxes. Then you by a lifetime annuity.
When you die the payments stop.

To hi lite you assume all he risk.
The Money managers get a few hundred Billion in fees.
At the end you give all the money to the insurance company.

What was their point? OH yeah what if you die before 65 then you are dead and your spouse is worse off than under the current plan.

[MissB]

8. If my dh were to die this year

(And he is in his mid-40s, so that isn't happening), my children and I would receive nearly $4000 a month - $48k a year - in Social Security benefits. I would get that money now. Not when I turn 65, but now.

It would keep us afloat until I could re-enter the job market. The kids would receive their portion of that money until they turn 18.

So it just isn't true that the family doesn't benefit from Social Security in case of death.

[Cleita]

9. It's a LIE.

My husband just died and I am getting widow's benefits through SS, so the family does get stuff back. If there are children under eighteen they also get benefits until they turn eighteen. If they go to college then it's twenty-one.

Also, a lump sum payment from savings may have inheritance tax and sometimes income taxes attached to it. SS doesn't. It's a red herring argument. Most people pay so much in life insurance over their lifetimes that the benefits are only a fraction of what was put in. The money would have yielded more if put into a savings account or even under the mattress.

When I worked in the insurance industry, Life insurance was regarded as pure income and the salesmen licked their chops everytime they could sell it.

[Salviati]

15. No, they're just mistaken...

you tell them that they're mistaken, hit them over the head with the truth, and then let them know that now that they know better, if they continue to spout this talking point, it makes them a liar...

And we all know how much republicans hate liars... :eyes:

[Bonhomme Richard]

10. Sometimes, just doing for the welfare of all is the correct answer.

Have we always been such a self-centered, greedy people? Nothing has prevented the individual from investing in the markets on their own and taking the risk. Geez, what about my tax money that goes toward maintaining highways that I will never travel on or property taxes that pay for the education of other peoples children?

On edit: Of course, that's the philosophical difference between progressives and conservatives.

[Cleita]

12. Good answer.

Really, we should all be concerned about the greater good of society, not just our little, insular selves.

[alcuno]

13. Dead people don't need social security. They are dead.

I don't use the public library, but it doesn't mean there shouldn't be libraries.

Besides, how about better health care for African American men?

[EVDebs]

14. The Bush Govt. run accounts violates conservative principles and

begs the question of 'why' privatized accounts are necessary AT ALL, since the much ballyhoooed free market is already there. If YOU want to YOU can just go to a bank and open up an IRA account, or buy an annuity from an insurance company, or just save up more of your own money and bequeath it.

Whaddya need Bush & Co. to screw up your good thing for ? Look what this bunch of fools did with Iraq with all of their lies. Do YOU want THEM in charge of anything to do with YOUR money ?

You've got to be kidding if you do.

What's behind all of this and the media never touches is the fact that globalizing corporations are dropping benefits for pensions and healthcare from Western employees so as to 'compete' with lowcost foreign labor markets (which don't have pensions and healthcare). The companies get to drop more of the Soc Sec 6.20%, $84,900 income capped and Medicare, 1.45% payroll taxes.

Eventually these companies will drop all benefits and voila, finish the Race to the Bottom !

Oh, did I mention that medicare is next on the neocon agenda ?

[leesa]

16. Why SHOULD their family get iit? Is there a reason?

It's meant to be a safety net, if the person's dead why do they need a safety net??

[BillZBubb]

17. The family does get survivor benefits.

The right wing is lying. They have no valid point.

Social Security provides many types of benefits. Survivor benefits and disability just being two very obvious ones.

I would propose you understand the system before you buy into the Repug propaganda that SS needs any meddling at all. It doesn't.

[Corgigal]

18. Also if you're disabled

your kids get benefits. My husband is disabled and each of the 3 kids get 220 a month. You don't have to die to leave your kids something on SS.

[union_maid]

19. My mother is still collecting on my father's benefits

And he's been gone for 23 years. She retired early because he was several years older. He retired at 69 and died six months later. Her share of his benefits as surviving spouse were greater than hers would have been alone, so she stayed on his benefits and that's how it is today.

Even if that weren't the case, Social Security is part of the common good. It's part of the way we provide for society as a whole. This issue is, as Steve Israel said today at a luncheon I was at, "the defining moment...between our core values and their core values."

[Liberal In Texas]

20. Tell your "friend" that SS is NOT an investment plan...

...it's a safety net for disabled people, family survivors, and retired persons.

And it should not be an investment scheme. That should be wholly different.

[wadestock]

21. You're being sucked up into a brilliant distraction

let the weak inept current democratic representative fight it out.

Even if they privatized 1/3 of Social Security, there wouldn't be much of an effect on you or me.

The RW attack machine has purposefully put together a plan that WON'T have much effect, although the news worthiness of the entire thing is designed to destroy the democratic party.

Meanwhile...the tax breaks will be permanent, and the country will become bankrupt.

The rate of risk towards bankruptcy is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than anything that has to do with social security.

Scream to the hills and mountains the fact that tax policies are creating an ultra rich class that is taking away your benefits and will take away any power left in the middle class.

Scream to the hills and mountains that a war that is unwinnable and spending that is irresponsible will create a debt that has to be financed at such an expense that interest payments on the debt will be in the 500 Billion dollar range within 2 years. We will be financially crippled and the rest of the world is going to laugh at us that we ask them to finance this debt at low interest rates.

Within 2 years, the issue of social security will pale in comparison to the depression that we're headed for.

[dflprincess]

23. Betting that you'll live to collect your benefits

is a safer gamble than putting your money into the stock market.

Ask them what happens if you go along with the new system and right before you retire the market tanks and you lose most or all of what you've invested.