Bush Propaganda on Social Security

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
So Killer , I take it that you don't like our current Social Security System :p


I found it interesting that you dismissed borrowing and subsequently adding trillions of dollars to the national debt (to finance privatizing accounts) as mere "unfunded liabilities". Prior to that, however, you vociferously ranted on and on about those terrifying treasury securities, unfunded interest payments, and the horrible Ponzi Social Security pyramid. You made it sound like the most scurrilous governmental action since Teapot Dome.

Tell me, what happens when the national debt gets too high? How do we fund such debts and the interest thereto? What is the end result --> Inflation?

And down the road ... If privatization occurs and some of the invested accounts go belly-up or the stock exchange takes a nose dive and loses much of its value, then what happens to those people with insufficient funds? Do you think the government will let them starve or freeze? No way ... they would just add more taxes to everyone's burden.

You would rather play roulette with a safety net?

---------

Although I agree with some of what you say, your ideas of making Social Security a voluntary system has about as much chance of passing Congress as does an asteroid barreling through the Sun. It would vaporize before it got out of committee.

No Republican or Democratic Congressman would touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Adding voluntary privatizaton accounts on top of the existing Social Security system is about the only plausible position that I could readily see.


So where does that leave us?

In all probability, nothing will happen ... until 2014. Then, Congress will enact higher tax limits and put off this scenario again until ~2050 or so.

I guess one could always hope that our latest generation will procreate more. The system apparently needs more worker bees ...


;)
 
Since this keeps getting bumped back up into my line of sight, I have to ask: Where are all the Americans for fair tax when SS reform comes up for debate?

Babyboomer retirement as a SS problem is a load because, since our population is growing rather than shrinking, they're more than replacing themselves on the work force. They have about 3 babies per couple, and those babies are most definitely of working age by the time the parents retire. If SS works for any one generation, it's pretty much infinitely sustainable barring extreme population shocks (war or disease driving the population into decline, maybe).

What Republican'ts don't want anyone to know is that the crisis stems from the fact that the rich don't pay their fair share. SS tax is only taken on your first 86 grand or so. Let me rephrase: someone who makes $4 million a year pays the exact same total dollar amount of SS tax as someone who makes $86,000. Stop spending SS money on non-SS projects, get the dead-beat rich off everyone else's backs, and SS will work just fine and forever shall, amen, five blades, sweet Jesus in heaven.
 

KillerAim

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun:
So privatization is the only way, but every suggestion will do x? You mean that the only solution, privatization, right? Or is privatization not the only single possible solution?
It is the only long term solution that stops the bleeding of money from the Government.

Think about it. In a normal retirement plan, you put away money (M) over time and eventually withdraw that money plus some interest (I) earned on it. Insurance companies, investment firms, banks, etc. offer this service because they believe that they can earn enough off the money they receive that they can pay you back interest and still make a profit. As I said before, this is a win-win situation for both the company and the investor; therefore, it can go on indefinitely.

It’s different with the Government. Up to now, they too have collected “M†and paid back “M + I†to the average retiree. The trouble is they are not generating income off the amount they collect. When they pay back “M + Iâ€, they pay the retiree with the “M†they are collecting from people still in the workplace. Even if they would have put all Social Security receipts in a lock box, they would still be short the amount of interest they paid to the retirees. In other words, they could have paid back “Mâ€, but they would still be short “Iâ€.

But our greedy politicians on both sides of the aisle spent a lot of the accumulated “M†on unrelated Government expenditures. So not only are we short the amount of interest paid out, we are also short of “Mâ€.

As to the fact that all other suggestion will lead to tax increases, benefit reductions or a combination of both, that can be proven by simple mathematics.

Every one agrees that if nothing is done, soon the amount coming in to Social Security will be less than the amount going out. To balance this equation, you must either increase the amount coming in or decrease the amount going out (or some combination of the two). That means either raise tax rates or tax limits, or decrease benefits either directly or by raising the retirement age.

It doesn’t take a math genius to realize that whichever choice is taken, the change will adversely affect the cost-to-benefit ratio. You will either get less benefits for what you pay in or you will pay in more to get the same benefits.
 
America should really get over the interest collection and personal profit song and dance. Social safety nets are not personal investments. What people are paying now benefits the people who need it now, period. <--- That's the period.

These same anti-SS arguments would apply to any other safety net just as sensibly, yet I don't hear anyone arguing that welfare is in crisis or that we need to make sure that welfare recipients get more money out than they pay in over the course of their lives.
 
IDupedInMyPants said:
These same anti-SS arguments would apply to any other safety net just as sensibly, yet I don't hear anyone arguing that welfare is in crisis or that we need to make sure that welfare recipients get more money out than they pay in over the course of their lives.
Yeah, but aren't they just all lazy immigrants who come here to have babies and live off of welfare checks? :rolleyes:

KillerAim, my only point was a semantic one on your choice of words. You said "this is the only option!" and then said "the other options suck" (paraphrase). If there was only one, there can't be others. If only one of many is viable, that's a different ball of wax, and you should have said that. Frankly most of this is out of my league--I last took economics 5 years ago. I studied politics, and we politics people are notoriously bad with anything to do with money, remember? :lol:
 

Rius666

Diabloii.Net Member
llad12 said:
I had much the same feelings when I was your age ...

Llad per 1970 ... "Social Security won't be around when I get old."

Guess what Steve? It's still here ... it will be here tomorrow ... and, unless the US government collapses, it will be there for you.
Just a quick note about this comment. There is a BIG difference between now and 1970. By the time 2018 comes around -- some 10 years after the oldest boomers turn 62 (the age of first eligibility for benefits). Social security will pay out more than it takes in.

They might have been saying that social security wont be around in 1970 for whatever reasons but that was before baby boomers--the nearly 77 million Americans born between 1946-1964--hit retirement age.
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Rius666 said:
Just a quick note about this comment. There is a BIG difference between now and 1970. By the time 2018 comes around -- some 10 years after the oldest boomers turn 62 (the age of first eligibility for benefits). Social security will pay out more than it takes in.

They might have been saying that social security wont be around in 1970 for whatever reasons but that was before baby boomers--the nearly 77 million Americans born between 1946-1964--hit retirement age.
IMO, it's just fear ... many of the younger ladies in my office mentioned that they said the same thing in the 1980's ... for whatever reasons as well.

Remember, it was us "Baby Boomers", who have been taxed at higher rates for the last few decades, that helped build up the current SS Trust Fund's Treasury Securities. These same securities can now cover any shortfalls until 2042 or thereabouts.

Regardless of what has been inferred by others, the US government has never shortchanged any Treasury notes and there is little reason to believe that they ever will. As such, there is little justification to believe that this system will fail ... unless the entire government collapses. For sure, the current system needs to be twinked at little. The simplest and easiest solution, however, is to simply raise the taxable income level. For the vast majority of Americans, they would feel no pinch at all and it would probably insure the viability of this system throughout your lifetime.
 

Hippie Holocost

Diabloii.Net Member
llad12 said:
IMO, it's just fear ... many of the younger ladies in my office mentioned that they said the same thing in the 1980's ... for whatever reasons as well.

Remember, it was us "Baby Boomers", who have been taxed at higher rates for the last few decades, that helped build up the current SS Trust Fund's Treasury Securities. These same securities can now cover any shortfalls until 2042 or thereabouts.

Regardless of what has been inferred by others, the US government has never shortchanged any Treasury notes and there is little reason to believe that they ever will. As such, there is little justification to believe that this system will fail ... unless the entire government collapses. For sure, the current system needs to be twinked at little. The simplest and easiest solution, however, is to simply raise the taxable income level. For the vast majority of Americans, they would feel no pinch at all and it would probably insure the viability of this system throughout your lifetime.
The same ignorant answer as always... "well lets increase government and give them more money, that will make us safer."

No. I'm not ready to give and give and give and never recieve anything. This government has been twisted and distorted into a "provider." Meanwhile hard working people who are trying to start out in life get stuck with a burden and will never be helped. Ilad, at this point, when I am "eligible" for SS, I will not recieve a dime. Yet you say all we need to do is tweak it.

I have no problem paying taxes to fund some programs. But when my income gets taxed by the federal and state governments, then I get taxed for buying a stick of gum, then I get taxed for buying a house, then I get taxed when I inherit my fathers property, then I get taxed for selling stock, then I get taxed for buying a beer, then I get taxed when I go to a casino, then I get taxed for SS. It has gone too far. But hey, at least you get to retire on my dollar...
 
Hippie Holocost said:
The same ignorant answer as always... "well lets increase government and give them more money, that will make us safer."
Hmm...so the non-ignorant answer is more government on less money? That doesn't make sense to me, but it sure seems to be the Bush economic doctrine...
 
Rius666 said:
Just a quick note about this comment. There is a BIG difference between now and 1970. By the time 2018 comes around -- some 10 years after the oldest boomers turn 62 (the age of first eligibility for benefits). Social security will pay out more than it takes in.

They might have been saying that social security wont be around in 1970 for whatever reasons but that was before baby boomers--the nearly 77 million Americans born between 1946-1964--hit retirement age.
The beauty part is that those 77 million people are going to have a couple kids each who will all be in their 30's and 40's by the time 2018 comes around. It's seriously starting to seem like you guys think the boom generations don't reproduce, and instead random generations are just spontaneously declared to be booms and babies begin spawning from nothingness in celebration of our declaration.

Also, here's another big difference between now and 1970 - the assumed year of social security's insolvency. People have been "predicting" the year of Social Security's failure just about every year for decades based on "simple math," and yet somehow each time they do this math, the year of failure gets pushed forward about a decade. And that's with a tanking dollar and politicians bleeding SS dry for entirely unrelated projects. Doesn't that strike you as odd at all?

Edit:
Hippie said:
The same ignorant answer as always... "well lets increase government and give them more money, that will make us safer."
Oh please, let's not begin playing to anyone's paranoia over freakin' retirement accounts. Social Security reform isn't about fear of government tyranny, you silly oaf.

No. I'm not ready to give and give and give and never recieve anything. This government has been twisted and distorted into a "provider." Meanwhile hard working people who are trying to start out in life get stuck with a burden and will never be helped. Ilad, at this point, when I am "eligible" for SS, I will not recieve a dime. Yet you say all we need to do is tweak it.
Even by Bush's tweaked out gloom and doom numbers, last I heard you'd get 75% of current payouts even if absolutely nothing about the program is changed in any way. That's not too bad. And, like I said, social safety net, not personal investment. You don't seem to mind paying for roads that other people drive on or education for other people's kids, nor do you seem to mind having someone else pay for the same for you.
 

Hippie Holocost

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
Hmm...so the non-ignorant answer is more government on less money? That doesn't make sense to me, but it sure seems to be the Bush economic doctrine...
No, devolution. If someone is going to take my money I want it to be people close to home so I can see more of my tax money making my community better.

The federal government should recieve tax money for mainly military. That is the primary responsibility of the federal government in my opnion. Regulate inter-state fiscal (and judicial) matters and protect the states from foreign threats.

I have no problem with some federal funding for things like FASFA and other social services. But what we have is out of control, too much spending and I believe SS is one of those programs that should go (or at least shrink). Take less of my money and let me act as an individual.
 
Hippie Holocost said:
No, devolution. If someone is going to take my money I want it to be people close to home so I can see more of my tax money making my community better.

The federal government should recieve tax money for mainly military. That is the primary responsibility of the federal government in my opnion. Regulate inter-state fiscal (and judicial) matters and protect the states from foreign threats.

I have no problem with some federal funding for things like FASFA and other social services. But what we have is out of control, too much spending and I believe SS is one of those programs that should go (or at least shrink). Take less of my money and let me act as an individual.
Sounds to me like you're not a Republican, you're a Libertarian. Then again, I might just be assuming you're a Repub. based on your positions in the past, I don't know that for sure.
 
IDupedInMyPants said:
You already got at least one tax break under this guy. Relax, take a load off.
I'd be surprised if Hippie made enough to really benefit much from that tax cut, and thats not a comment on how much Hippie makes.
 

Hippie Holocost

Diabloii.Net Member
source
IDupedInMyPants said:
Oh please, let's not begin playing to anyone's paranoia over freakin' retirement accounts. Social Security reform isn't about fear of government tyranny, you silly oaf.
Thats what it is to me. If I'm part of society and I'm not getting social security then I consider that something for me to be afraid of financially.

* To keep the Social Security program solvent, the tax rate would need to be raised by about 50%, or the benefits would need to be cut by about 33%. [70] [71] [72]

* Between 2037 and 2075, the Social Security program is projected to run annual deficits totaling 30 trillion dollars

heres some of that "ghost math" you have been looking for, feel free to browse...

[68] Calculations done with data from:

A) “Trust Fund Operations in Current Dollars: Intermediate Assumptions 2001 Trustees Report.†Office of the Chief Actuary – Social Security Administration of the United States of America, February 13, 2001. Notes: (a) The data in this document was unavailable for the 2000 Trustees Report. This document projects that the program will become insolvent in 2038, as opposed to the 2000 Trustees Report that projects insolvency will occur in 2037. We cite the year 2037 to maintain consistency with the rest of the facts we listed. (b) This document projects that the assets of the Social Security program at the end of 2075 will be negative $329 trillion (in year 2075 dollars.)

B) "The 2001 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds." March 19, 2001. Accessed at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR01/index.html in May of 2001. (This is a 1480 KB Adobe PDF Document and took about 10 minutes to download on a 56K modem.) Notes: (a) Page 155 contains data to adjust the deficit into year 2001 dollars.



[69] Calculations done with data from:

A) "2000 Social Security Trustees' Report." Reference footnote [1]. Notes: (a) Page 122 projects there will be 195,274,000 people paying taxes in 2075.

B) Footnote [68]



Even by Bush's tweaked out gloom and doom numbers, last I heard you'd get 75% of current payouts even if absolutely nothing about the program is changed in any way. That's not too bad. And, like I said, social safety net, not personal investment. You don't seem to mind paying for roads that other people drive on or education for other people's kids, nor do you seem to mind having someone else pay for the same for you.
* Factors that have contributed to the falling ratio of people paying taxes compared to people receiving benefits:

1) Increase in life expectancy without a comparable increase in the retirement age.

2) The higher birth rate of the baby boom generation compared to the birth rates of succeeding generations.

3) The increasing number of people receiving disability benefits.


1) Increase in life expectancy without a comparable increase in the retirement age:

* Since the inception of the SS program, the retirement age has not changed. Current law requires that the retirement age be moved back 2 years by the year 2025. [74]

Edit:

DrunkCajun said:
Sounds to me like you're not a Republican, you're a Libertarian. Then again, I might just be assuming you're a Repub. based on your positions in the past, I don't know that for sure.
I'm a republican upset with his party leadership. I believe that I will eventually start voting libertarian if things don't start to change...
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Hippie Holocost said:
The same ignorant answer as always... "well lets increase government and give them more money, that will make us safer."

No. I'm not ready to give and give and give and never recieve anything. This government has been twisted and distorted into a "provider." Meanwhile hard working people who are trying to start out in life get stuck with a burden and will never be helped. Ilad, at this point, when I am "eligible" for SS, I will not recieve a dime. Yet you say all we need to do is tweak it.

I have no problem paying taxes to fund some programs. But when my income gets taxed by the federal and state governments, then I get taxed for buying a stick of gum, then I get taxed for buying a house, then I get taxed when I inherit my fathers property, then I get taxed for selling stock, then I get taxed for buying a beer, then I get taxed when I go to a casino, then I get taxed for SS. It has gone too far. But hey, at least you get to retire on my dollar...
Incredible, unless you are making substantially over $89,000/year, you wouldn't even notice the increase I am talking about. For God's sake man, I am the one who would be taxed more ... yet I am not the person whining and wringing his hands over fortifying this important safety net for future generations.

It behooves me that some people think only of themselves. Social Security aids so much more than just retirees. So many seem to forget the disabled and survivorship benefits that go out to your fellow citizens.

Oh well ... as DC said, Republicans can just go ahead with your new and improved borrow and spend fiscal policies

Tax cut ... spend ... borrow ... Tax cut .... spend ... borrow

Whee ... I bet you just can't wait for this inflationary technique to hit the proverbial fan.
 

Hippie Holocost

Diabloii.Net Member
llad12 said:
Incredible, unless you are making substantially over $89,000/year, you wouldn't even notice the increase I am talking about.

Ilad....


I HAVE ONLY BEEN GETTING A PAY CHECK FOR TWO YEARS AND WILL NOT GET ANY OF MY MONEY BACK ALREADY!!!!!

Look at the facts I posted about when I am 52 SS will be negative my trillions of dollars with the current system. Thats more than fixing the sink...

(if you've seen the AARP commercial you'll know what I'm talking about).
 
Hippie Holocost said:
Ilad....


I HAVE ONLY BEEN GETTING A PAY CHECK FOR TWO YEARS AND WILL NOT GET ANY OF MY MONEY BACK ALREADY!!!!!

Look at the facts I posted about when I am 52 SS will be negative my trillions of dollars with the current system. Thats more than fixing the sink...

(if you've seen the AARP commercial you'll know what I'm talking about).
I don't know, because I wasn't around, but I get the impression that 20 years ago people were saying the exact same thing, even with math to back it up. So far it's still there.
 
1) Increase in life expectancy without a comparable increase in the retirement age.
I'm pretty sure people are working longer anyway. And if it's really a problem, you could always, you know, tax everyone evenly instead of essentially not taxing the top 10%.

2) The higher birth rate of the baby boom generation compared to the birth rates of succeeding generations.
That actually leads to more people paying in. If a generation has a high birth rate, that means there will be more people of working age by the time that first generation retires. It's not like people stop having kids just because they share the same birth-two-decades as 70 million other people.

3) The increasing number of people receiving disability benefits.
That's an increasing number and I'm willing to bet not an increasing proportion, therefore being perfectly sustainable.
 

Hippie Holocost

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
I don't know, because I wasn't around, but I get the impression that 20 years ago people were saying the exact same thing, even with math to back it up. So far it's still there.

Then I guess the only solution is to assume the math is wrong again and not change anything. Because the worst thing that could happen is changing the system and making people more fiscally responsible when we don't have to.
 
Top