Community | February 15, 2011 | 380 comments

You Want To Cut Social Security? You'll Have To Get Past Us

Image
kennymotown
The true goal is to destroy the New Deal, standing together we can make this a real political issue. Privatizing Social Security has been Wall Streets wet dream, and if they get their hands on those funds imagine the next financial meltdown and what it would do to those of us counting on what little they get from Social Security!


By Susie Madrak
ENLARGE

Matt Yglesias says if there are going to be cuts to Social Security, they should happen right away to everyone, including current recipients. And I have to admit, he has a point.

Because the "of course we'll exempt everyone 55 and older" from getting their promised benefits is just how the politicians on both sides of the aisle are covering their asses as they toil away for the banker class, and maybe it's time those shiny pink butts should be exposed to the light.

Not to mention, this is classic "divide and conquer" strategy. We should stick together. We should present a united front. You want to cut Social Security? Then you need to face the universal wrath of the voters in the next election, instead of putting some of us in a protected class. (Of course, it's a rather desirable side effect that if we do present a united front, the chances of actual Social Security cuts drop precipitously.)

This could be our Egypt moment. Just as Christians surrounded the Muslims at prayer, we should surround the younger generation with our promise that if they try to take their future Social Security, they'll have to go through us first.

You cut one, you cut us all. How about it?
  1. groups:
    Community,   US Politics,   Progressive America,   Humanism,   3 more
  2. tags:
    News News and Politics US Politics Humanism 2 more
  3. recommended by:
    WakeUpPeople
  4.     
    |

380 comments // You Want To Cut Social Security? You'll Have To Get Past Us

  • katyids
  • katyids
  • davidwestafa
  • katyids
    • +2
      katyids  
    • davidwestafa:

      There is no welfare anymore. You might want to ask people how much they make, and, no, that is not where the 'money' is going. We have two wars on. We send billions overseas. We give serious tax breaks to the wealthies and large international corporations. Jobs have been outsourced so people who would be paying taxes are, instead, needing help to survive. We spend millions to sports teams and stadiums. The poor, sick, and elderly are not the ones to hit.

    • 2 years ago
  • dudefromtherock
    • +4
      dudefromtherock  
    • You pay your taxes and pay into a plan your whole working life on the promise you will be taken care of...basic needs met at least, when you retire or are too ill to work. Letting your fed get it's greedy corporate shilling hands on it will spell chaos. Vote! Vote for your representatives who are against this act. How will you possibly live if there is no social income for you when the feds have squandered it all away......united you stand.

    • 2 years ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • 0
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • To all, I believe this thread may be just about finished, please check out my post on the news section- FIJA Judge refuses free speech in Florida-Thanks guys, I look forward to your comments or feedback.

    • 2 years ago
  • gypsysailor
    • +8
      gypsysailor  
    • To V. I started doing what you suggest last year. It feels good. Only as a last resort do I shop at BOX stores. The bank I was with for over 35 years and I have parted ways and I now bank at a credit union. I'm down to 1 card plus gas. Last month I traveled around the Southeast for 10 days. Never hit an interstate. Only took the backroads and only stayed and at local shops. I learned and re-enforced 2 things. America is alive and well but struggling. The locals know how to cook better than any chain.

    • 2 years ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • katyids
    • +3
      katyids  
    • gypsysailor:

      I agree. I've been all over the country, and rarely use interstates. People are really friendly and helpful. Even when I traveled alone, I've had no problem. No one asked if I was left or right before helping or serving or whatever. I, too, don't shop at box stores, try my best to buy US, and use a credit union. I don't eat at chains either. I don't have much money, but I willingly pay a bit more for things that are made in US, and when I do shop a chain (Target..) I put in a customer comment that I want more US made options. One thing I have noticed is that you drive down one street in one town and it looks like any street in any other town. A strip with McD, Walmart, and on and on. Fortunately, there is still main street. As for the food, oh ya. Not so good on the coffee usually. Doesn't it feel good to opt out of certain ways of doing things?

    • 2 years ago
  • Conniepae
  • gypsysailor
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • kerriberri
  • Nancy_J_Powell
    • +11
      Nancy_J_Powell  
    • Social security is not the problem, on the other hand Medicare and Medicaid we need to reform. What is happening in Washington is Kabuki theater for you and me. Each one of us need to make sure our representatives do no harm during the theatrics.

    • 2 years ago
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • +6
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • Nancy_J_Powell:

      The #1 way we can make Medicare and MediCaid/Cal more efficient is to allow our government to negotiate for lower drug prices with big pHarma.

      You will notice, however, that this is not an option for either the Democrats or the Republicans.

    • 2 years ago
  • Fishinflick
  • Milieu
    • +2
      Milieu  
    • Fishinflick:

      Well, of course. To Republicans it is an entitlement. The Rich are entitled to our money because they know how to make it work oh so much better than the 97% of the rest of us since Gawd blessed them with this innate sense of how money works.

      Just look at George III, (the last George III was insane as well) he made vast sums of money and never did anything except destroy several Oil Companies.

    • 2 years ago
  • Fishinflick
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • Mr_Brainwash
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • Conniepae
  • Maggielee
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • Maggielee
  • katyids
    • +1
      katyids  
    • Actually, guys, I am having a problem with this site, but I can't get into the feedback site for help. It tells me to login (I already am). Then it won't take my login info. So I try to login through Google and it won't accept that either. It keeps telling me my email address doesn't exist. I get emails from current. Any ideas about another way to get help? I like coming here (just found it), but it's getting to be a time waster trying to resolve these problems. About all I seem to be able to do is make comments. But then I've always been good at that. I would like to rate and reply though, and it won't let me do it anymore (worked for a while).

    • 2 years ago
  • ArchDruid
  • Mr_Brainwash
  • kerriberri
  • Mark701
  • Maggielee
    • +2
      Maggielee  
    • katyids:

      I Katyids.... I'm pretty new too and and initially had the same trouble. After a week or so it seemed to work itself out with out me doing anything. I still will occasionally have the problem with "reply" and the red and green arrows but it will be only on one article site, but all other are open. I still have some problem with "running script"...a message I had never had before on any other site. It seems to make things run slow. I'm still not sure about it but Funky made a suggestion to use google chrome. Another person has also taken my information and is going to the site administrators. I need to look at my messages to get the correct spelling of her user name...can't remember it at this instant.. I will give your name if you want and she can contact you to see if it's something she can take to the administrators. I wonder if the problems have increased due to the large influx of newbies in the past few weeks?

    • 2 years ago
  • Warren_Merrill
  • katyids
    • +1
      katyids  
    • ArchDruid:

      Dear Archdruid. Thanks for the suggestions. It does seem to be working better today after shutting down. And -- I got an email this morning from current. They got your message and wanted to know if I was still having the problem. Nice, eh? I can rate and reply. Yippie.

    • 2 years ago
  • katyids
  • Mr_Brainwash
  • katyids
  • katyids
  • katyids
    • 0
      katyids  
    • Maggielee:

      Thank you for your message, Maggielee. I'm kinda liking this site. Aside from good news, Keith Olberman has now introduced me to a very friendly site.

      To all, I appreciate your friendliness about helping me figure things out. Good day to you all, you're sweethearts.

    • 2 years ago
  • Maggielee
    • 0
      Maggielee  
    • Warren_Merrill:

      You are the 2nd person to say that Warren_Merrill. I am definetly going to change over to firefox. We have it on other computers in the house, so I just need it on my personal lap top. Thank you so much for responding with advice. That's one reason I want to make sure I have full access to this site...because of people like you! I am finding a whole lot of really nice people on Current.

    • 2 years ago
  • Warren_Merrill
  • Maggielee
  • katyids
    • +2
      katyids  
    • I seem to be able to make comments but i can't reply or rate an answer. If i could, I would have upped you, V. That was great, sad, and very prophetic. George would have loved the internet. He'd know we at least have a voice if not power.

    • 2 years ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • moneybags
  • extracrazykiwi2008
  • Schnookums
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • +6
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • moneybags:

      Thank you, you are very kind.

      Here are a just a few suggestions, I will have much more to say in my forthcoming book, but in short, Americans on mass must unplug from the corporate controlled economy. The specifics on how each individual can do this are of course dependent on each individual's life situation and circumstances, some will be able to do just about everything-to completely unplug- others perhaps only can unplug a little bit to start but the cumulative effect Will eventually and inevitably (say 3 to 5 years) end this plutocratic nightmare, and the people can begin to enjoy life again.

      The only way this will work permanently however, is that the methods and practices which got rid of it must not be allowed to stop. If you have a cockroach infestation, you don't clean them all out, then go back to leaving food around or living dirty and expect them not to show up again, it requires a permanent change in mentality, in buying behavior, a change so radical, that a teenager for instance would rather be caught dead than wearing jeans that were sourced from a shopping mall and made in Mexico by someone her own age who slaves 12 hours or more a day, and is routinely raped at the end of her shift. A personal example, I am not wealthy, I never have been wealthy, like the majority of you good folks reading this, I'm in the same boat, and until just two years ago, I was living paycheck to paycheck. But I have never, not once, bought anything, ANYTHING from Wal-Mart, and I never will.

      Historically and from a rational point of view, there are only two effective possibilities to accomplish the goal of ending plutocracy, they are:

      1) A violent revolution were all the fat cats are rounded up, ALL their Wealth is confiscated (that which they stole “legally” though "business") and is redistributed to the needy populous, this however (as history has also demonstrated) is only a temporary solution, because without a change from the old paradigm, in time, eventually the same thing will happen again, that's because the old fundamentalist (capitalist) paradigm inherently guarantees that never ending cycle.

      2) An economic revolution that effectively radicalizes consumers, shifting their buying habits in ways that corporations can do little if anything about, those changes would be: not buying anything NEW if at all possible, (yes that includes a car) weaning yourself off of all things big-box sorsed, supporting small independent businesses, like getting your burgers or pizza from some independent owner (also let them know at all times, that your doing that for them, so they in turn will do it for others) rather than a corporate chain, avoid corporate chains whenever possible, that includes auto care, unless you move around the country a lot, are young and unsettled, or for some other reason need a nationwide warranty. Do not go to banks for loans, if possible keep all monies within the family or lone to friends, help your friends, do not charge interest. Your friend (the other advantage is you'll find out how good a friend your friend is) will never forget your help in their time of need, but the main theme here is Fuck the banks, because after all the only thing they exist for is to fuck you. Close any and all of those accounts and put anything you have in a credit union. keep some fucking cash on you, in the words of the immortal George Carlin, doesn't it seem the least bit stupid when some fucking moron is at a 7-Eleven running a card to pay 28% interest for a box of fucking Tic-Tac's? Speaking of cards, in general, get rid of them, keep one credit card, that you rarely if ever use. Get used to paying EVERYTHING IN CASH. A technique I use which I have found works really well, is this, after paying all my bills, I take any remaining cash that I have in the best financial institution in the world, it's called My Small Fireproof Little Safe, and the best thing about my financial institution? They never turned me down for a loan! And they are open 24 hours a day! Wow! Now that's service! I take my monthly allowance and put it on the counter, I say to myself -this is all the fucking money there is in the world-in my world-spend too much asshole-and you don't eat! which I actually did once, I didn't eat for five days, not because I was "cleansing" or "detoxing" while rubbing my crystal energy beads, or some other New Age neurotic bullshit, I didn't eat, because I want over-budget! Were not talking exactly rocket science here.

      Anyway I hope this helps someone, the important thing is that you must unplug, and you must incorporate these changes for the rest of your life. Capitalism is a branch of fundamentalism, and it has several "fundamental" flaws. The primary one, which explains why it is habitually unstable and dysfunctional (as history will attest to) is that it completely ignores the law of resource allocation, in short proponents of capitalism will tell you that wealth is limitless, and therefore you have a right (they even propose an obligation) to obtain the greatest amount of wealth you possibly can, the truth however is that is completely incompatible with existing reality, that is to say, it's bullshit. Because we live on a ball which is floating in space, the earth's resources are finite, they are fixed, there is only so much habitable land, only so much ocean fish and only so much fresh water to sustain human life. From an energy conservation analysis (which is not even addressing the second law of thermodynamics) it works out to roughly 1:1 to 1:3 resource units per human, that is to say the planet can comfortably support (although it's reaching its upper limit) the current population, but not if a small percentage of sociopathic "businessman" conspire to steal and board a disproportionate amount of resources (yes that includes money) for themselves, and fuck everybody else.

      As always, I am, and remain, V.

      Remember, remember the 5th of November…

    • 2 years ago
  • Warren_Merrill
    • 0
      Warren_Merrill  
    • VFORVENDETTA:

      "A violent revolution were all the fat cats are rounded up, ALL their Wealth is confiscated (that which they stole “legally” though "business") and is redistributed to the needy populous"

      Wow! I've earned every dollar I've made. But if there are people like you out there maybe I need to buy a gun to defend my family and my properties. Right now you will have to settle for an arrow between the eyes from thirty yards.

    • 2 years ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • 0
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • Warren_Merrill:

      First of all,which is typical of people of your ilk, you quoted me out of context to give a misrepresentation my intention, secondly, which is also typical of people of your ilk your first response to anything which remotely would involve any thought process, is to get a gun. Your vacuous logic speaks volumes of your vitriolic mindset!

      V

    • 2 years ago
  • moneybags
  • Warren_Merrill
  • Warren_Merrill
  • Warren_Merrill
  • Persecuted
  • The_Pharaoh
  • Clevelandchick
  • Warren_Merrill
    • +1
      Warren_Merrill  
    • Clevelandchick:

      "Social Security doesn't add one freaking penny to the deficit."

      Only because the government keeps taking more money from paychecks to pay for it. When I started working it was 6%. Now it's 15%. At this rate in thirty years it will be 37%. The half your employer pays is money he doesn't have to pay you. The self employed pay both halves.

    • 2 years ago
  • Earthwalker
    • +3
      Earthwalker  
    • Image
    • I wonder how many cities would crumble... if not for the social security monies the population of that city depends on. Think about it most on Social security are elderly and children...then disabled...whole city centers would perish.. total cities would be shut down look at the popular retirement hot spots like florida etc. BYE BYE !!! www.zeitgeistmovie.com

    • 2 years ago
  • Persecuted
    • +6
      Persecuted  
    • Earthwalker:

      seems like they want to take away any kind of money from all poor people, doesnt it? i wonder who is going to fuel their greed machine when all the poor people (most of america) doesnt have money to spend

    • 2 years ago
  • Clevelandchick
  • Earthwalker
    • +4
      Earthwalker  
    • OK...... then give us our money back!!!!! Thats my money and my parents money and my grandparents money .....Rich dont pay social security ...they don't work!!!

    • 2 years ago
  • Clevelandchick
  • Clevelandchick
  • audiotruther
  • Earthwalker
    • +4
      Earthwalker  
    • I agree...NO way !!! to the privatizing of our Social security...The current congress is as we speak (c-span) pushing to cut funds to any type of renewable energy ...one rightwinged facist was bold enough to say that solar energy was not new and needed no Research and development allocations...meanwhile, apropriating funds for the relic Fossil Fuels R&D...I smell a rat ...a big fat dirty rat...the only way to get rid of rats is to destroy the nest...
      Tabled was a bill that would get rid of your rights to legal representation if you could not afford it!!!! RAT RAT RAT Did you know that the number of democrats is significantly higher than republicans by a huge margin...look it up yourself its all smoke and mirrors...the electronic ballot system to the rigged election in florida RAT! RAT! RAT!!!!!!!!

    • 2 years ago
  • Earthwalker
    • +2
      Earthwalker  
    • I agree...NO way !!! to the privatizing of our Social security...The current congress is as we speak (c-span) pushing to cut funds to any type of renewable energy ...one right winged fascist was bold enough to say that solar energy was not new and needed no Research and development allocations...meanwhile, appropriating funds for the relic Fossil Fuels R&D...I smell a rat ...a big fat dirty rat...the only way to get rid of rats is to destroy the nest...
      Tabled was a bill that would get rid of your rights to legal representation if you cannot afford it...all this in the name cutting the budget.
      where were these frugal "conservatives" when ol' GW was spending trillions of dollars? Remember the spending bills the last "majority Rep. house" passed in the previous admin that brought us to this horrible economy. The deficit will never be re-payed for there is no money to repay it!!! if you borrow at interest where do you get the interest to pay your loan it simply doesn't exist!!! They are stealing from your children and your grandchildren. DEBT=SLAVERY
      They Gave TAX BREAKS to MULTI-MILLIONARES RAT! RAT! RAT!
      TAX!!! BABY!!! TAX!!! I propose a dollar tax if you own a dollar It gets taxed ..it only fair!!!

    • 2 years ago
  • eden49
  • kennymotown
  • eden49
    • +2
      eden49  
    • ...I'm sick of gettin' the message "A script on this page is making Explorer thingy run slowly"...WTF...(apologies from Eden, the ungeek)...

    • 2 years ago
  • ArchDruid
  • Schnookums
    • +3
      Schnookums  
    • ArchDruid:

      It's the main reason Presidents change the way the CPI is calculated so as to keep the COLAs as small as possible.

      If the average Social Security check had kept up with true inflation (not the heavily massage statistics the BLS comes up with), The average Social Security check of $133 in 1970 would be an average Social Security check today of $3121, and not $1080.

    • 2 years ago
  • Tyr
    • +7
      Tyr  
    • it's interesting to me to read all the comments made about what savvy investors they would be if only they had the deductions that are taken out of their paychecks, which by the way are NOT going into some fund, but rather are going to pay the current recipients. Which by the way is the way it has always been, as FDR explained it, it is an agreement between the generations, I think it has worked beautifully for over 70 years. Now about these investments that folks woulda, shoulda , coulda made is a bunch of bullshit as the current home loan meltdown proves. The American people are not SAVVY investors , no the truth is most of them spend every dime they can get their hands on and then borrow even more as evidenced by the enormous amount of debt on visa Master card etc.The ugly truth is this , without social security the vast majority of Americans would be penniless at the age of 65...Now John A and others of course would be multi millionaires if only they had had the few dollars they paid in Social Security..yeah right...The fact of the matter is that the same bunch who are up to their eyeballs in debt would still be... even if they had the deductions taken out.face the truth , look around you and be honest with yourself, do you really think that the average Joe would do much more than buy a bigger pickup or a few more cases of beer every week if he had that social security deduction left in his take home pay...I for one do not.

    • 2 years ago
  • kennymotown
  • Clevelandchick
  • kerriberri
  • 2hellnwait
    • +2
      2hellnwait  
    • I draw SS, and it isn't near enough. . . but just the same, it has to be funded differently, 'cause all it is now is a humongous ponzi scheme. . . and to add insult to injury, what reserves that should have been available to fund it has been raped, plundered and pillaged. . . year after year after year after year after year after year. . . are you beginning to get the picture now?

    • 2 years ago
  • Clevelandchick
  • 2warsoffbooks
  • 2hellnwait
  • montn
    • +1
      montn  
    • 2hellnwait:

      But the IOUs are backed by US Treasury bonds. The reason SS holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has NEVER missed a single interest payment on its debts. Bush wanted to put SS funds in the stock market -- which would have been disastrous had he been successful. So the trillions of dollars in the SS trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget are as safe as can be.

    • 2 years ago
  • Warren_Merrill
    • +1
      Warren_Merrill  
    • 2warsoffbooks:

      "And apply SS withholding to all forms of income not just wages!"

      Bullshit. I already pay a 40% tax rate on the interest earnings on the money I made after the government took 40% for selling my business. If there isn't an employer to pay the other half that's another 15%. No way the government is taking 55% percent of the interest earned on my life savings.

      Let me tell you all you revolutionaries what's going to happen. When my youngest is out of college I'm retiring and establishing residence in Monaco or San Marino and have a second home in the US. Then you'll get zippo. After enough people are driven to do this were are your "entitlements" go to come from? You'll be fighting with each other like rats fighting over the last piece of cheese.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Suppose a group of ten people all gathered together at a restaurant every week for dinner. Suppose further that they had decided that they would split the check according to their incomes, with the person who made the most money paying the most, and the person who made the least money paying the least. To make the math simple, we’ll assume that every week, the dinner bill for the ten people comes out to an even hundred dollars. The people split the check like so:

      --the first four, with the lowest incomes, paid nothing;
      --the fifth paid $1;
      --the sixth paid $3;
      --the seventh paid $7;
      --the eighth paid $12;
      --the ninth paid $18;
      --the tenth person, with the biggest income, paid $59

      They continued in this arrangement for many weeks, until one day, the restaurant manager visited their table to deliver the check himself. He told his ten guests, “You folks have been great customers, and we appreciate your continued patronage. To show our appreciation, I’m going to knock $20 off the price of your meal. I’ve already worked out your individual payments, according to your original agreement.”

      The payments worked out like this:

      --as before, the first four people paid nothing;
      --the fifth person now paid nothing instead of paying $1;
      --the sixth person now paid $2 instead of $3;
      --the seventh paid $5 instead of $7;
      --the eighth paid $9 instead of $12;
      --the ninth paid $12 instead of $18;
      --leaving the tenth with a bill of $52 instead $59

      Every person was better off than before, but after leaving the restaurant, they all started comparing their savings.

      “Hang on a sec,” says Number 6, “I only got a buck out of the $20 reduction, and he got $7!”

      “Hey, you’re right!” says Number 5. “Why should Number Ten get seven times what we got?”

      “Yeah, I’m with you guys,” says Number 7. “Number Ten got more than double what I got.”

      And One through Four chime in, “And we didn’t get anything at all! No fair!”

      To make his dining companions feel better, Number Ten divides his $7 savings amongst the group, leaving each person (except Number Ten!) with $0.70 more of refund money.

      The following week, Number Ten didn’t show up to the dinner group. The remaining nine people sat down to dinner as usual. But when the check came, they discovered that they were now $52 shy of paying their $80 bill.

      Enjoy your meal!

    • 2 years ago
  • kennymotown
  • Nancy_J_Powell
    • +4
      Nancy_J_Powell  
    • Written in 2005

      Social Security
      Are private accounts a good idea?

      To give America's struggling seniors a lifeline out of poverty, Franklin D. Roosevelt 70 years ago established the Social Security system. The program was never intended to be particularly generous -- and even after increases over the decades, the average check totals just $14,000 a year. Yet Social Security remains a mainstay for America's 36 million seniors; two out of three of them count on it for half their income.

      Now, a cash squeeze endangers Social Security's future, as the huge Baby Boom population heads into retirement. If nothing is done, the system may only have enough money to pay today's young workers about two-thirds of their benefits when they retire. So President Bush and other free-market advocates are suggesting the most sweeping change to this core social program since its inception, based on a simple premise: Let the stock market help fix it.

      On Jan. 11, Bush kicked off his new campaign by telling a town hall meeting that younger workers should be able to take some of their payroll tax and "set it aside in the form of a personal savings account." Social Security only provides returns of about 2% a year after inflation, and private accounts, says the President, could top that easily if they were invested even partially in stocks. Explained Bush at a press conference back on Dec. 20: "Over time, that rate of return would enable that person to...make up for the deficiencies in the current system...and more likely get that which was promised."

      Is he right? Are private accounts really a good idea? The short answer is, they could be -- but only if Americans are willing to wait several generations for the higher returns to make up for Social Security's expected shortfall. The gap is so large -- $3.7 trillion in today's dollars -- that even if the stock market matched its historical average, private accounts wouldn't fill the gap for something like 90 to 100 years. And that doesn't even count the extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion in transition costs required to set up such accounts.

      "NOT A MAGIC BULLET"
      Still, private accounts have their appeal. They could be a way to encourage savings. They could partially prefund a system that is now pay-as-you-go. Another plus: the nest egg that builds up, something older Americans may be able to pass on to their heirs.

      The details of the plan that the President will ultimately ask the country to consider are very much in flux. Now that Bush has put fixing Social Security at the top of his domestic agenda, there's a profusion of proposals across the political spectrum, and horse-trading between Republicans and Democrats over the coming year will certainly influence the shape of the final program. For now, Social Security reform is a moving target.

      Even so, the President has pointed repeatedly to the suggestions of his 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security. Because that group's blueprint contains the rudiments of just about any of the private-account schemes out there, it's a good starting point to assess how a partially privatized system might play out over the long haul. Its primary plan calls for allowing workers under 55 to divert four percentage points of their 12.4% annual Social Security payroll tax into private accounts, up to a maximum of $1,000 a year. It also slashes the future growth of Social Security benefits to wipe out the shortfall -- relying on the accounts to make up what amounts to only a portion of the difference. Indeed, today's 20-year-olds would see their promised benefit cut nearly in half, leaving them a check equal to just 15% of their annual income when they retire.

      Of course, no politician wants to be the first to deliver bad news, so Bush hasn't yet indicated that his plan might involve reducing benefits from today's promised levels. But now, some Administration officials are starting to concede that private accounts can't earn enough to fix all of Social Security's ills. White House adviser Peter H. Wehner made the point explicitly in a memo widely circulated in early January.

      If Americans go for private accounts, then, it won't be so they themselves receive the retirement Social Security currently promises. Instead, those working today would be accepting smaller benefits, as would their children when they join the workforce, so that their grandchildren could count on a fully funded system. Says David C. John, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who is a leading advocate of private accounts: "It's wrong to say that private accounts can fill Social Security's shortfall. They're not a magic bullet. But do you want to leave the world better for your grandchildren or just tell them to make do?"

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnA
    • +1
      JohnA [removed]  
    • Nancy_J_Powell:

      Private accounts that the government still controls are not a good idea. That's a sham. If it's my money, give it to me, and I'll decide what to do with it. I've done better investing than I could ever get out of Social Security.

    • 2 years ago
  • kerriberri
  • Mark701
    • +1
      Mark701  
    • Nancy_J_Powell:

      I think Bush's "plan" refuses to acknowledge several elephants in the room:

      1) Wall Street: These are the geniuses that crashed the economy in 2008. You know, the guys we had to give a trillion or so bucks to because they lost all the money in our 401Ks At this point I wouldn't trust Wall Street to feed my fish, never mind entrusting them with more of my retirement savings.

      2) Wall Street: Whether most Americans realize it or not, retirement funds that are entrusted to Wall Street (401Ks) were/are set up to pay the fund managers and shareholders WAY more money than the investor. The article at the link below pretty much sums it up
      http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/blog/make-money/vanguards-john-bogle-financ...

      3)Wall Street: Diverting 12.4 percent of Social Security payroll tax into "private accounts"? Lots wrong with this. It ties our taxes to Wall Street, to the "too big to fail" banks and the legalized theft of companies like Goldman Sachs. Wall Street and their associates should NEVER AGAIN be trusted to look out for American citizens best interest because they never do. They (with the help of the Fed) failed us in the 30's, the 80's the 90's and again in 2008. This "plan" is the equivalent of insanity i.e. doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
    • +1
      Mark701  
    • JohnA:

      No problem. Take all your money and invest it with a bunch of idiots that crashed the economy in the 30's the 80's the 90's and again in 2008. Just one thing, when they lose your money again (and they will), don't come knocking at the door for SS. Fair enough?

    • 2 years ago
  • fairandbiased
    • +11
      fairandbiased  
    • Image
    • The income tax on wages was supposed to be temporary too, but like every dime Washington takes from the citizenry, they always want more so they can keep handing it out to their corporate puppetmasters who then use it to fund moving their factories overseas. The representatives then get a cut in the form of huge campaign contributions for their favors.
      Moral of the story: You are screwed.

    • 2 years ago
  • jesus_is_a_liberal
  • JohnA
  • Mark701
    • +2
      Mark701  
    • JohnA:

      As above, no problem. If you don't mind being refused private insurance because you have a pre-existing condition or don't have enough money. Or mind being denied insurance under your existing plan because you forgot to tell them you broke your toe when you were four. Or insurance rates that increase at 10 times the rate of inflation. Have at it my friend. But as I indicated in my comment above, don't come knocking on the governments door to be taken care of. Oh, and don't use the emergency room at a hospital because you lack insurance because guess who pays for people who need hospital care but have no coverage? Yup, the federal government i.e. my taxes.

    • 2 years ago
  • judithann
    • +3
      judithann  
    • You know I can see where we will be in a country where it's everyone for themselves. That kind of talk has been around for many years. We were told
      back from the 60's to now that there will be no SS for us. Well.... My husband
      & I are now collecting SS, not our choice we wanted to wait until we were in our
      late 60's but my husband was laid off 2 yrs ago and we were forced to "retire".
      Trust me it's not much! Always looked forward to retirement now that it is here, it's a disappointment, no money to do anything, gas to high, Oh Well! at least we have some money.

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnA
    • +1
      JohnA [removed]  
    • Just pay me back every cent you've taken out of my paychecks since I was 14. I won't even ask for interest. I never expected to ever see a dime of it back then. I know for sure I will never see a dime of it now. So stop taking it out of my paycheck. I opt out.

    • 2 years ago
  • kennymotown
  • nowherefast
    • +2
      nowherefast [removed]  
    • If anyone is going to cut social security it would be a Democrat. Here are some fund facts regarding the program(pun intended)::

      Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
      Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

      1.) That participation in the Program would be
      Completely voluntary, (it no longer is voluntary )

      2.) That participants would only have to pay1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program. (It's now 7.65% on the first $90,000)

      3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year (No longer tax deductible)

      4.)That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore,would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, (Under Johnson, the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent !!)

      5.) That annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. (Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month --and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away')

      Here is what's interesting:

      Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

      A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
      controlled House and Senate.

      Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

      A: The Democratic Party.

      Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
      Security annuities?

      A: The Democratic Party,with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

      AND MY FAVORITE::Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

      A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country,
      and at age 65,began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!!!

      Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

    • 2 years ago
  • BigAL72
    • +3
      BigAL72  
    • Social Security is not going to exist in 25 years. Who are we kidding. In tomorrow's America it's everyone for themselves.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nancy_J_Powell
  • BigAL72
  • Nancy_J_Powell
1 - 100 of 380

top videos