Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hands Off Social Security
A White House deficit commission is reportedly considering deep benefit cuts for Social Security, including a steep rise in the retirement age. We cannot let that happen. The deficit and our $13 trillion national debt are serious problems that must be addressed, but we can and must address them without punishing America’s workers, senior citizens, the disabled, widows and orphans.
First, let’s be clear: Despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. That’s a lie! The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. Today’s $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039. Got that? In case you don’t, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to ever eligible beneficiary for the next 29 years. It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.
The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing anti-government crowd is based on the fact that Social Security, a government program, has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For 75 years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans.
Despite this outstanding record, Social Security has become a political football. For ideological reasons, some in Congress believe that government should not be in the business of providing benefits to seniors or the disabled. They want to privatize Social Security. Others say, incorrectly, that Social Security is going bankrupt, so benefits should be reduced and the retirement age set at 70. I strongly disagree with both assertions.
While the critics profess concern about Social Security’s financial future, their fuzzy math ignores the fact that this highly successful program has not added a dime to our deficit. From the day when the first check landed in the Ludlow, Vt., mailbox of retired legal secretary Ida May Fuller on Jan. 31, 1940, Social Security has more than paid for itself.
With regard to the future of Social Security, there are some really dangerous ideas out there, and one proposal that makes a lot of sense.
One of the worst ideas is to privatize Social Security. After the greed and recklessness of Wall Street caused markets to collapse in 2008, does anyone still seriously believe it would be a good idea to turn the retirement security of millions of Americans over to Wall Street CEOs whose dishonesty and irresponsibility have no end? Their administrative fees alone would take a 15 percent bite out of workers’ retirement investments, not to mention the real threat of another stock market collapse. In sharp contrast, administrative costs for Social Security are less than 1 percent of the program’s budget. Most importantly, despite economic conditions and the ups and downs of the stock market, Social Security has never failed to pay full benefits to every eligible beneficiary.
Another horrible idea is to move the retirement age up to 70. That would cheat today’s young workers out of about 15 percent of their retirement benefits over a lifetime. The proposal also ignores the reality that millions of workers in demanding professions simply cannot continue to work until they are 70. The upshot for them would be reduced lifetime benefits for retiring “early.” Lower-income workers, those less likely to have other savings, would be hurt the most.
In the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with regard to Social Security, there is one proposal which is simple, sensible and would keep Social Security strong and solvent in a fair and just way. Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get off scot free on all of their income above that amount. In other words, an individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a multi-millionaire. That’s wrong. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this inequity. According to CBO, applying the tax to all income would provide all the revenue that Social Security needs for the foreseeable future – for our kids and grandchildren and great grandchildren.
As we mark the anniversary of Social Security, now is the time to pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. For 75 years, Social Security has lifted millions of people out of poverty and has provided stability and dignity for the elderly and for other vulnerable Americans. Our goal today must be to make sure that Social Security will be as strong and stable 75 years from now as it is today.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
118 Comments so far
Show Allyou are delusional sir
Any politician seriously worried about Social Security, or us, would be addressing the real threat - the Obama administration. But he can't do that. He is caucusing with the Democratic party. He has a deal with them - they let him say pleasant things that sound as though he were on our side, and in return for that he doesn't obstruct them.
Bernie has the figures to prove that Social Security is stable and will continue to be so. Why can't these figures be made public so that everyone (Right wings, fundamentalists, tea partiers, etc. who are grabbing for money that so far has been untouchable) understands why it must be left alone. Let the figures speak for themselves. Raising the age for retirement benefits does not correlate with a declining life expectancy. Pity the poor brick layer, school bus driver, waitress, etc. who can't sit back and take a deep breath because of a worn out back. Congress persons are the only ones who tend to hang in there way past their prime. Apparently grubbing for other people's bucks leads to a longer career than most people do not have the privlege to access. There is very little discussion of the trillions of dollars spent on war or the billions of dollars being added to the deficit by the money grubbers right to not pay their fair share in taxes. (We have seen how successful the 'trickle down economics has been.) How about an accounting of the Pentagon to disclose where the 'lost' trillions of dollars that was made public before 9/11 but hasn't come up since then. How about a few published figures showing how the deficit bcame so huge and how it can really be reduced immediately. When they are successful in dismantling S.S. and the deficit remains the same what will they go after next?
Bernie is caucusing with the party whose leader set up the cat food commission and put Simpson in charge. No figures will be made public. An occasional nice speech or article to keep the base contented and in the fold, and Bernie has done his job.
I support a compleat, armed, government takeover of the Privatizing Industry.
"Nothing was your own, except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull."
-- George Orwell, =1984=, Chapter Two.
TRYLON: Given the info related by Naomi Klein in "The Shock Doctrine," our "experts in torture" are not content to allow sovereign citizens even that few cubic centimeters. Why, to elude direct organ damage, they instead have elected to leave massive scar tissue on the nether zones of the mind, places where such barbaric levels of severity cannot be "measured." Evidently the sadists drawn to "that line of work" have seen much "progres" in acquiring the ways and means to break a mind down so that never again--like Humpty Dumpty--can its facets work naturally (or normally) together again.
And our tax dollars fund this stuff! But health care is off limits!
Welcome to the (US) asylum!
It is horrific.
Siouxrose:
The =shock= Naomi Klein uses in her thesis is psychological stunning of a collective belief system and resulting in collective PTSD. It is societal TASERING and involves the use of public disorientation, following massive shocking events: wars, terrorists attacks, natural disasters – to push through economic policies of benefit to the most wealthy elites. It is ELITE LOOTING versus PLEBE LOOTING during and immediately after some mind-boggling crisis. "A boggled mind is the Devil's playground," said Trylon who just made that up.
"Only a crisis, or a perceived crisis, produces real change" said the elitist, jerk winner of a Nobel Prize, Milton Friedman - who is the world's champion of the Hobbesian concept of Social Contract. The poor and those of the middle class who have their heads screwed on correctly need to gird for battle to establish a Rousseauian model of Social Contract. This was once more-or-less characterized in the slogan: "Workers of the WORLD unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains."
Capitalism has so successfully toy-bombed the poor with laughable "pretties, beads and e-trinkets" that they now believe they HAVE MORE than chains to lose. And the mega-rich are slapping a palm across their mouths and sniggering. We are both their primary source of amusement and their indebted sex slaves. "The Peasants are revolting."
- - - - - -
The even more depressing case is that, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - even successful revolt by a downtrodden populace eventually results in a new set of tyrants. What Winston Churchill did NOT say is that Democracy allows you (some idiot) to go to the polls and vote for the asshole tyrant of your choice.
As my turn to get off the merry-go-round begins to hove into distant view, I believe the final depressing case is that Nature's experiment on Earth with H. sapiens receives a cosmic =F=. It is a failure of Himalayan order. Any person with a college degree who is NOT a flat out Nihilist fails an intelligence test. Mail your diplomas back.
--Trylon
TRYLON: If you read her book, it begins with a discussion on the use of mental forms of torture which are designed to disorient people and break down their minds.
I am well aware of the Shock Doctrine's economic recipe as it's been exported to numerous foreign lands, and there being perfected has now been driven home.
It's a shame you and others didn't get the reference and its stunning implications.
WRT The Shock Doctrine
"Introduction: Blank is Beautiful" sounds to me like it was written by a schizophrenic on speed. Naomi chose to base an entire book upon a metaphor for what I would term 1) "amoral, piratical, cage fighting" capitalism or 2) collective Rohypnol for societal mindfucking and socio-rape- - that involves taking rapid advantage of stunned human beings and human societies. A good editor would have required Naomi to re-write this chapter to make a more careful separation of her various and confusing uses of the term SHOCK.
My career as a clinical psychologist included three years in mental hospitals where (over my persistent objection) patients were subjected to Electroshock Therapy. In Team Meetings my term for this was "shaking the dice" and throwing resultant behaviour on the table. In =1984= George Orwell made shocking the brain with electricity a method of social control by Big Brother.
Human torture, in any form, is almost as disgusting as the psychological Justification For It. Along with perpetual sexual molestation of small children - it constitutes the evidence for ME that every last Homo sapien, and every last molecule of our species's DNA, requires annihilation by mutual atomic homicide, or an unconquerable disease, or by an asteroid the size of Madagascar. Our species is not merely a failure, its a dangerously diseased failure. My prediction is that -if it ever leaves the surface of this planet - will eventually master techniques of GALAXY SHOCKING AND RAPE.
I agree. The 'Shock Doctrine' book has, however helped to popularize the just-under-the-surface idea among sentient humans that elite scum always do-what-they-do for the money. The Huxley lipstick on the Orwellian pig just improves the PR.
Any slave owner in the deep South during the 19th century was thoroughly trained in the techniques Naomi talks about; albeit on a smaller scale. The pattern of our US military with the native Americans with the bait and switch treaties is also a great example of this human treachery.
We are killing each other and a lot of other life forms on this planet. The elite are idiot murderers but they are not totally stupid. They cannot accept that we are all part of one biosphere and respect for all humans and life forms is NOT optional so they punt. They cling to the old 'shit flows downhill' model. Too much shit? Get rid of 4.5 billion people or so? Too many plants dying? No big deal. Save the DNA and when we get our garden back, we'll get the biodiversity going. In the meantime all this pollution and death is working for us (the elite parasites) to depopulate the earth. They probably have some people reading threads like this and cheering because the depressing outlook we postulate will lead more 'useless eaters' to suicide!
The elite are so totally self brainwashed and arrogant that they do not see the folly of bankrupt, egotistical thinking. They won't change.
But their IS a chink in their armor. The instability and untenability of their governing technique is increasing exponentially. I would wager that this whole trashing they do with stocks, houses, countries, etc. in modern times may be their way of getting in front of the inevitable. It won't work. It will eat them up too. We are the little fish. We have fewer needs and live frugally. The vaunted elite are bloated, fragile hogs. We will weather the massive crisis of our planet better than they. Most people don't live here for more than 80 or 90 years. It's high time we redefined what humanity really is. If we are a pathogen, then we will die when we finish off our host. If not, the 'we are a part of the whole and MUST respect ALL life' meme will dominate human thinking in the future.
That reinforces the idea that an "elite" exists and that this is the problem. The dynamic and the social relationship between the super-wealthy and the rest of us is identical with the social relationship between boss and worker, landlord and tenant, owner and not, all thorough the society at all levels. There is a pervasive assumption and agreement that those with more resources should therefore be able to dominate and control those with less - that is the principle upon which we have organized our entire community. It is that system - very similar to slavery - that must be overthrown, not some elite. There is no cabal at the top pulling the strings, and membership in the ruling class is constantly changing in this chaotic fear and dominance driven nightmare we have come to accept and knuckle under to.
Klein and others want us to imagine some elite - almost as though they were an alien species - running everything because they are benefiting from the system the way it is and do not want to upset the apple cart. Having us imagine some mysterious elite cabal allows all of the petty little tyrants and dictators, all of the bullies and self-promoters, all of the hustlers and con artists to be free from any attention or scrutiny, and nothing will change.
Notice how many of our "leaders" writing articles published here are hustling their latest book and promoting their careers?
Listen, I'm not happy with my conclusions either but they fit the facts better than your assumptions of a free for all going on.
"membership in the ruling class is constantly changing"
Not true. Kevin Phillips has written three or four books on American financial history tracing all the powerful families from then to now. Some have dropped out. Most haven't. The ENTIRE TAX CODE has been reshaped to enhance the free ride for trust fund jet set assholes who have never and will never hit a lick in their lives. The rich, my friend, DO NOT WORK. Furthermore, the latest book(s) compare the ossification and entrenching of the ELITE in empires (Dutch, French, Spanish, English and now the USA) with the increasing takover of all economic activity by the financial sector. He warns that virtually all of said empires defaulted on their international financial obligations as a direct consequence of this doubly unproductive financial activity; i.e. not only did it not produce anything but paper pushing, it sapped needed venture capital from genuinely productive industry. There was an upside though; these empires had to stop their wars from lack of money.
Now here's the thing. These folks own the media. All of it. They are discrete and they do not want the people to 'figure it out', so to speak.
I know you think I'm an alarmist conspiracy (that horrible word again, right) theorist. But go to the library. Read Kevin Phillips. His books are well researched and very entertaining. You gets lots of juicy historical factotems about what some of these 'families' have been up to.
Here is what you HATE to hear (and the elite are counting on it): In the USA, we are controlled by oligarchs who meet and plan our future on a regular basis. Conspiracy is their daily bread. We are nothing but cattle to them. They are ruthless (JFK's sister was given a frontal lobotomy for being 'mentally difficult'). They discredit anyone among them that breaks ranks and ruin them financially for life.
Oh, but they have great PR. Your massive resistance to the idea of a plutocracy here proves it. But according to Kevin Phillips, we are going down.
I have gotten a great from Phillips' books also - Wealth and Democracy and Bad Money are the two i am familiar with. Frankly, I must confess that, to my mind, his status as a "reformed Rep" lends him more credibility ....
Could it be that there is confusion about the REAL elite & the many "wannabes" that the owner/rulers will use (& induct, or discard, as they see fit). I hold firmly to the "long-lived cabal" theory AND a sort of "free-for-all" going on. It's like the mafia and their "cosa nostra" ("our thing"). The "our thing", is that system, which they'll all band together to preserve when it's threatened, BUT they will indulge in internecine warfare between rival families (the old feudal warfare thing, between rival robber-barons) when the overall system isn't directly threatened. The "cosa nostra" goes on, along with the fight for "top dog" status.The really old "Families" go back to dark-age Venice, whose names we don't even typically know. The "Rothful-fellows" & "Rocky-children" & other such-like families, are relatively new "wannabees" who've apparently been inducted into the "cosa nostra" (I assume I'm not allowed to spell out the names), and they may lose their standing in the future, BUT the "cosa nostra" goes on.
"Any slave owner in the deep South during the 19th century was thoroughly trained in the techniques Naomi talks about; albeit on a smaller scale."
I have to take you to task for this one. A good academic library will have reprints of 19th century books and manuals about =slave husbandry=. The reason that I've examined them is that my forebears owned slaves for some 205 years before emancipation. They included a lot of Baptist clergy, and the CJ of the Alabama Supreme Court. You won't find reference to Any Act that damages slaves, that would be asinine. The worst intimidation IMO was threat to sell their children.
Seconded.
Bernie Sanders has a great idea. Lift the cap of 106 thousand dollars in taxing income for social security.
I agree. However we have a huge problem in this country with the definition of 'money'. As long as we have inflation while the government says we don't, the buying power of any given number of units of currency is in doubt. And that is, of course, by design.
Currency, what it means, and what it buys is a very deep subject with a long and painfull history. The short version is that the elite ALWAYS corrupt a currency to their advantage and the people's detriment. Only when the people devise alternate methods of currency divorced from (and invisible to) the government do the masses get a fair shake.
Note to Greg R. I'm in Vermont and we have statewide less than 6% unemployment. Everything looks great. But it's not. It's PR hollywood. The numbers are phony. The food banks HERE are struggling. The homeless shelters are packed and there are waiting lists. Property crime is jumping. Rural communities in Norman Rockwell lal-la land are locking their doors. But yeah, it's all happened before in other parts of the world. It's our turn now.
Siouxrose is right. But who is right isn't the issue. Critical thinking IS the issue. Turn off the TV.
I don't know everybody's story, of course, but I think the DEFLATION of housing prices has left a lot of people on the edge of no equity/bankruptcy. That's why even those with a job are often in trouble. Many don't know if they should walk away from their homes or not. See, I don't buy stuff like "the numbers are phony." The numbers are out there and they say that a lot of people who were doing great at the height of the housing bubble are now underwater. I do agree that "critical thinking is the issue."
If that passes for a "great idea" from the best person we can hope for, we are in a world of hurt.
I would call that an old self-evident and obvious idea, myself.
Here is my great idea, and maybe I can get elected to the Senate: "I think that the solution to people being hungry is we should give them food. So vote Democratic."
So then let me see if I have this right - he would be "a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus" and there would be an election coming up, yes?
When impeachment was taken off the table, did that not also doom Social Security?
Well, hopefully, the people of San Francisco will see fit to take Nancy Pelosi off the table this November and replace her with a Social Democrat.
Hmm, there's a wee problem with Sanders' view (though I love the guy totally).
Simple economics dictates the all-consuming corporate project of the last 30 years: to align the wages paid to US & European workers with those paid to (almost) equally efficient workers in less developed countries (LDCs). I once worked in Saudi for a few years, aside equally qualified Pakistani engineers, yet I was paid many multiples of their salaries. That was (and remains) unjust to the Pakistani engineers. That must, and will inevitably, change. Simple econ, folks!!!
The Social Security pact is between generations, yet the UNSPOKEN assumption is that a following generation shall earn more than the preceding generation, meaning that financially everything will be okay even as the ratio of employed:retired workers deteriorates, as it has and will continue to do (partic given recent hyper-focus on immigration and even birthrights, for gawd's sake).
What happens though when the assumption about increasing real wages is violated? Things fall apart. So by 2039, expect either US wages to have fallen to rough parity with LDC wages, or LDC wages to have risen to rough parity with US wages. Which is more likely? I'd bet on the former for quite a few (obvious) reasons.
Note that the Fund is required BY LAW to purchase Treasury's bills issued & sold to cover current deficits, and that our current deficits are always stated NET of the Fund's purchases, ie the deficits have been publicly understated for a long time now, and will continue to be. (Incidentally, it was due to the fact of that law that Greenspan was alarmed when Clinton began to forecast retiring the national debt 100%; where would the Fund's receipts go then? Why, the Fund would now start to make its own public investments, with all THAT would entail, since there would be no deficit to cover! But I digress...)
Now, factor in that as US wages are reduced to international parity, national income will concomitantly contract, and thus, tax receipts will be lower. Meaning deficits will increase as a percentage by 2039. And that a negatively-reinforcing financial feedback loop is unleashed (kinda like global warming).
So the house of cards threatens to collapse as its prevailing assumptions -- compounded & increasing wages & national income -- will no longer hold.
Forecasts from the GAO/SSA are based on assumptions agreed in advance. Seriously, I doubt anyone has dared question whether real wages will fall over the next 20 years (maybe this is why the calculations for the estimates have not yet been published?).
I think real wages are certain to fall over time, with severe impacts on Social Security and the social fabric of the US. I also think the current ideas of cutting benefits is really lousy UNLESS IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY A COMPLETE SOCIAL SAFETY NET (one that would require us to reallocate 100% our military/foreign expenditures to domestic needs) -- only that posture would appease us as our real wages declined by 50% or more. Bernie's thought that it's only a matter of lifting the cap a little doesn't address root causes, nor does it seem to consider the inevitable mobility of high wage earners (yes, they're Benedict Arnolds).
Final word: not only are the clowns in DC not preparing us for the consequences of peak oil, peak water & peak commodities, they're also not preparing us for "peak wages"....
I think it likely that the dollar will depreciate somewhat. This is also what we need to get some jobs back. Stuff from China will cost more, but people will have a bit more money and can buy more local.
HYPER: If you are new to the forum, welcome. Your posts are profound and rich in the way of insights. Thank you for contributing to the forum.
His list of posts is short, starting in 2009 here, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/24-7 Quite interesting ideas.
If you're in your 20s or younger, Social Security won't be there if we're lucky to make it to whatever they raise the retirement age to. At 25 and their rate of raising the retirement age, I'll be lucky to qualify at 80 if I make it to that age.
Sigh, more fear mongering - see my comments above. The fix is simple: reinstate progressivity in our income tax rates and everything will be fine. The cap doesn't have to be raised, and it's arguable that it should be nothing more than indexed. The basic, ethical & moral, idea has always been that one should get out what they put in, and I shure as heck don't want to see the Fund providing rich people annual retirement funds many many multiples greater than the average paid.
However I must say that I AM attracted by the stimulus of payroll tax forgiveness for all companies whose workforce levels are greater than what they had in, say, 2007.
When I was in my 20s (around 1967) I read a Playboy magazine article explaining why Social Security was smoke and mirrors and was not going to be there when I needed it.
I'm getting paid social security now. (TRUE)
Back in those days I really, honestly read Playboy for the articles, not the bunnies.(LIE)
Goldman Sachs is broke and you and I are paying for their welfare check. (TRUE)
Look up the expression EX NIHILO. When you understand it, you will understand that it is total bullshit to talk about the fiscal health of ANY US government budget item (including social security).
Does anyone here care about Social Security being available by the time those of us in our 20s or younger are lucky to make it to retirement age? I predict that the retirement age will slowly be raised to 90 to offset the deficits so that very few senior Americans will ever get it and then Social Security will be abolished.
Sigh, more fear mongering - see my comments above. The fix is simple: reinstate progressivity in our income tax rates and everything will be fine. The cap doesn't have to be raised, and it's arguable that it should be nothing more than indexed, i.e., the basic, ethical & moral, idea has always been that one should get out what they put in, and I shure as heck don't want to see the Fund providing rich people annual retirement funds many many multiples greater than the average paid.
However I must say that I AM attracted by the stimulus of payroll tax forgiveness for all companies whose workforce levels are greater than what they had in, say, 2007.
I agree on taxing the rich. I didn't know it affected Social Security. Thanks.
Spot on Bernie.... Eliminate the salary cap. Force the wealthy to pay MORE! Who cares how they moan and grown. besides, they are such lazy cowards and traitors, they will probably leave the country if their taxes go up. So in that case, STRIP them of their citizenship!
Except for the last sentence, I agree. If they are no longer citizens, then how will government be able to tax them? We can't strip them of citizenship.
Good point. The rich are way ahead of you. The US government is targeting the semi-rich now by proposing to alter banking laws so international money transfers to and from the US must be reported above a very low threshold (around $300) instead of the current $10,000. Of course, it's all about setting up a framework to tax the transactions. The real big boys can dance around this stuff (see my comments on Wells Fargo) but the low class millionaires ( 10 million or less are being targeted).
There is even talk of jacking up the cost of citizenship renouncement. It's a race. As hyper said. The rich aren't much into national loyalty.
"There is even talk of jacking up the cost of citizenship renouncement."
I would be interested in seeing more on that. Is there a site for the details? If all this happens and all we have left are poor middle class citizens, wouldn't we be able to form a socialized government without wars because there would be no rich people to fund them? If those countries that the rich move to go belly up and they return, what then?
I saw your message on EX NIHILO. I shall check it out. Thanks.
Yes, there is a site. It is called The Daily Reckoning. Bill Bonner is the best writer there. He is passionately libertarian and although he is quite a good writer, he has no empathy for the poor at all. He is blinded by his disgust with those of us on pensions as if WE are the cause of government problems. He ignores the blatant cost overruns and outsourcing to corporate pigs that are the real cause of our runaway deficits. He ignores the fact that many of us would never have chosen a government career in the first place if it wasn't for the pension benefit. It doesn't even occur to him that he is using a government service (air traffic control) every time he flies. We were told straight out that we would never be rich and we accepted that. Mr. Bonner didn't, went into private enterprize, is a millionaire and now is all upset about us zombies and the 'unfairness' of the US government taxing US citizens abroad. Hypocrite.
Keep your critical thinking cap on. There is good and bad stuff everywhere.
mouths flap open, and meaningless words
fly forth, a flock of feathery, fluttering birds
distractingly darting about one's head
while gloves grab the money chest under the bed
There is no "Social Security Trust Fund" in any meaningful sense -- and anyone who will take the time to go to the Social Security Administration's website can easily verify that.
When the government gets our money for Social Security, it immediately spends it. A special non-marketable government bond (an IOU) is placed in a filing cabinet. So the so-called "Social Security Trust Fund' consists of a bunch of IOUs in a filing cabinet. There IS no money in the fund.
When the bonds come due, the money has to be taken from the government's general fund. In Fiscal Year 2010, the so-called Trust Fund had to start paying out more than it took in. In other words, the government had to borrow money from the Chinese to pay for Social Security payments. The problem only gets worse from now on. It is a matter of demographics.
The author of this article knows this -- everyone knows it by now. Certainly every member of Congress knows it. But the author deliberately made the false statement that the "Social Security Trust Fund is not going bankrupt." Congressman Sanders is a liar -- and anyone who believes him is a fool.
This author's belief is that "the government had to borrow money from the Chinese to pay for Social Security payments" as if somehow the financed debt of the US can be factored by the payments made from its current accounts. Nonsense.
These Simpsons & Reagans of the world are only satisfied when the Fund keeps its assets in a bank account, letting the private banking sector invest the monies back into the economy... oh, maybe they'd rather the Fund puts those cash receipts into a tabernacle, that glorious "filing cabinet", only to cycle it back into the economy at a future date? That'd be insane - a prescription for permanent economic depression. It'd be equally insane IMHO to let the private banking sector reinvest those monies. Please tell me, where DOES the Fund put those excess receipts over current expenditures? Where? A big ol' safe? Because if you say "private bank" then you're puking nothing but fear solely to justify privatization of the Fund's CASH ADMINISTRATION function, i.e., the same OMB-76 crap we've been force-fed since 1980.
Enlighten us, please, why the issue is not INSUFFICIENT CURRENT TAXATION to pay off those historical debts incurred by Republican administrations & congresses since 1980. Or would you rather see our children pay off the loans made to us by the Fund? Hardly a rhetorical question -- it is the heart of the beastial immorality hidden within the Pledge to America.
Geez, use the brain God gave you. It's today's flattened tax rates that threatens to rob our kids their retirement funds, not the form of its current investment.
As I understand your rather incoherent argument, you are saying, "Of course there isn't a trust fund. There should never be a trust fund because it might be used by the productive segments of society and we couldn't have that. No. It is much better to take the money & let politicians use it to buy votes with pork barrel projects."
I am glad that you at least admit (contrary to the lie that Sanders published in his article) that there is no money in any trust fund. I am glad you admit that Social Security is merely a ponzi scheme. Though unlike Madoff, the government forces participation at the point of a gun.
Though at the end of your spiel, you talk about the "for of its current investment". There IS NO investment. As soon as the money comes in, it is spent. It is spent on such wonderful projects as teaching Africans to wash their peckers after sex. That is hardly an investment that is likely to produce any reasonable rate of return.
The reason that Social Security is broke is the same as with any ponzi scheme -- simple demographic. There are more and more retirees getting more and more money while there are fewer and fewer workers per retiree. Simple demographics. e have an aging population and the number of workers is going down. At some point, the workers will no longer be able to carry the dead weight.
If you want to talk "immorality", let's talk about the immorality of forcing America's youth to pay for the benefits that the oldsters voted themselves over the years. Let's talk about the immorality of taking, at the point of a gun, the money a person earns to redistribute it to someone else -- preferably a reliable voting block.
Or we could talk about how Junior is going to feel about grand-dad when he is paying 70% of his income to support the old folks in their retirement. Do you think he's going to want to struggle to make ends meet just so grand-dad can go fishing whenever he feels like it? Won't you love hearing how he explains to his kids that they can't have a bike because after the taxes he pays, there just isn't enough money for them?
I really love the way you seem to think that the problem with the American worker is that he is under taxed. THAT'S the way to boost his chances in the highly competitive world of ours -- RAISE HIS TAXES!
And if he is really productive WELL, TAX HIM EVEN MORE! After all, if he is more than a mediocrity, we can't allow that. He might have money left over to invest in businesses that create jobs. But we certainly don't want that. We fervently believe that all "extra" money should go into the hands of the politicians because they spend it so much more wisely than those who work for it.
Grow up, Junior & get a clue. Use the brains God gave you to become informed about the subject before you start writing about it.
I am a youngster and I resent your remark against the elderly. The elderly are getting what they paid earlier to get later. The young are doing the same. You're dead wrong on taxation. The American worker is already overtaxed while billionaires who don't deserve to be called "workers" are undertaxed. What does God have to do with any of this and why do you associate Social Security with a crook pointing a gun to someone's head? You appear to know less about Social Security than even me. If you're worried about spending, why aren't you complaining about war spending that's causing unemployment?
We have a commitment as a society to take care of our elderly and infirm. When the older people were young they worked and paid in so that the people their grandparent's age would be OK. No one saw it as a Wall Street portfolio nor as an investment account, and the arguments we see here - on a progressive board! - only came from the most rabid and extreme right wingers.
We take care of our elderly. That is what this is about. If people don't want to support that idea, disagree with that, they should be honest and say so.
First of all, it is not a question of "taking care of the elderly". Did you read anything about droves of old people being left to starve in America before social security? It didn't happen. Furthermore, people are not talking about leaving the people who are now on Social Security (or close to being on it) in the lurch. They are talking about phasing it out.
We are up against cold hard reality. We have more retirees and fewer workers. In order to support these retirees, the workers are going to have to pay more of their money in taxes. Their standard of living is to become significantly worse just so that retirees can get the benefits they voted themselves.
What people are suggesting is that if we phase out this ponzi scheme, then maybe in a couple of generations, we can release our citizens of this burden. It's going to be rough on the kids who are graduating from school now. They will live their lives in a tax-induced poverty. But maybe their children, or at least their grandchildren, may be free from this burden.
BTW, I like how you "progressives" react to hearing the other side of the argument. And Sanders in his article DOES suggest that the "Trust Fund" is an investment account.
"Furthermore, people are not talking about leaving the people who are now on Social Security (or close to being on it) in the lurch. They are talking about phasing it out."
In other words a clever political sleight of hand, designed to stay under the radar so folks won't get too mad. Well this is one folk, on SS, who has no intention of depriving future generations of the benefits of SS.
Ron Paul doesn't make a big noise about his stand on SS and Medicare, does he? Only when pressed and then he kind of mumbles about it. Now i wonder why that is?
ccoburn, I feel bad for your Faux brain. Why not move to Mexico? They have lower taxes. We sure won't miss you. SS is not broke you dumb ass. Maybe your just one of those poor ditto-heads. The 'problem' ding-a-ling is that the RICH are 'under taxed.' When I was a kid they paid up to 91% income tax. We had a decent thing going. Now the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and that's the truth. Look it up.
If all the productive members of society move to Mexico, then who will you "progressives" tax?
The top 1% of the earners in America pay 40% of the income taxes. The top 10% pay 90%. The bottom 49% pay none. The top producers are NOT under taxed.
I love the way you "progressives" hate "the rich". Bill Gates created a product that billions of people willingly bought. He didn't get rich at the point of a gun. His actions benefited billions -- so he became "rich". Sam Walton found a way to bring prices down for billions of people. He became rich because of all the people he benefited.
But you "progressives" hate people like that. You want to tear them down. A progressive sees a rich man living in a mansion & says, "No man should live like that." A capitalist says, "Every man should live like that."
"The top producers are NOT under taxed."
Hmm, the top producers, and just what is it they are "producing"? More derivatives? It's certainly not jobs.
And then there's Warren Buffet who points out his secretary pays more taxes than he does ...
"He didn't get rich at the point of a gun."
No, he got rich by essentially stealing another guys operating system and strong arming a monopoly for it ...
"He became rich because of all the people he benefited."
Ah, yes, including his employees who have to rely on public services for things like healthcare, and the companies forced to move overseas because their biggest buyer wouldn't pay a price for their product that allowed then to be profitable here ...
Your use of Gates and Walton doesn't exactly make your case ...
"A capitalist says, "Every man should live like that.""
Yup, you've summarized it - that's the problem with capitalism, even if it could deliver that to "everyman" such a delivery would be a disaster for the planet.