I just read an excellent post

[Sputnik]

on a non-DU board in a "Saving Social Security" thread. Most of the debate was "blah blah blah" to me, but this post made some excellent points in simple, direct language:

--------------------------------------------------------------
...But, I expect the debate on the issue to be conducted on the facts, not on scare tactics and lies. The truth is the major opponents of Social Security lack the balls to debate the isssue openly and to own up to the fact that their agenda is ideological, not actuarial. Now can you really tell me you can believe these guys are worried about the fiscal well being of the nation in 2050 when they clearly don't give a flying fuck about it today?

I think the future is seriously threatened by three trends. The first is debt, governmental and private. We can't sustain the current fiscal, trade and household debt levels and maintain a steady much less growing prosperity in the nation. It can't be done.

Second, the American economic edge is its creativity and innovation. That has always been based on being freer to do better science than the rest of the world. We're not smarter than other people, but we have been freer to try things and question conventional wisdom. But we don't do science so well anymore and other folks are catching up. The increasing anti-intelluctalism and science scoffing in the culture is dangerous. For example, look at what a similar mindset has done to the Muslim world for the past 500 years, prior to which they led the world in the development of new knowledge. Our advantage is cultural, not intellectual and we are losing it.

Third, the prevailing notion that there is no positive role for government to play in American life is very destructive....the notion that any government initiatives are inherently hurtful is just stupid. A weak, unsupported government will not win World and Cold Wars, go to the moon or build and maintain American ascendency in the world. More Teddy Roosevelt, less GDub.
---------------------------------------------------------------

[trotsky]

1. LMAO so very well put.

Now can you really tell me you can believe these guys are worried about the fiscal well being of the nation in 2050 when they clearly don't give a flying fuck about it today?

I've never heard it said so accurately. Ha ha ha ha.

[Iris]

2. This IS an excellent post. And

it's about the 10th time I've read something about anti-intellecutalism on DU in the past 36 hours.

This poster's points about science and innovation are right on the money. We are going backwards in this country, and it's frightening for any thinking person to watch, especially since all this has been done before. We've tried isolationism before and guess what we got out of it? The Great Depression.

[TheDebbieDee]

11. We are going backwards in this country......

And I think we will continue to digress as long as the Christians and right-wingers are running this country.

They will poo-poo and undermine every conceivable, progressive idea that is presented to the public. And as long as they're controlling that MSM, they're literally telling people what to think.

[BOHICA06]

3. And completely irrelevant .....

.... after all that we still need a way to fix the Ponzi scheme that is SS - so lets grap the third rail and figure out how to properly use this 15% of our personal income.

[Sputnik]

4. "Grap the third rail" ???

I have no idea what you just said. But trying to interpret what you wrote left no wonder why you consider someone's else's words as irrelevant.

"Relevant" and "irrelevant" are a matter of opinion but at least the post I pasted was coherent.

[BOHICA06]

6. Despite your opinion of any side in the debate ...

...SS will not survive my retirement without fixing. That is, money in has got to equal or exceed money out. Now whether this is by means tested or removal of cap or raising of rates or private accounts or something else, to wait until '08 or '12 or '16 is folly.

[trotsky]

5. It's not a ponzi scheme.

It is, and always has been, a tax on the working class to support those who cannot work or who are retired. It has been a smashing success in what it was intended to do: alleviate elderly poverty. Conservatives hate it because it's an example of a hugely successful government program.

[BOHICA06]

7. If you set up such a program ...

in the private sector, you would be arrested for fraud. Just because the government does it, doesn't make it any less a Ponzi scheme

[IrateCitizen]

10. The SS failure prognostications are a red herring...

When Congress voted to raise FICA taxes in the early 1980's, it was done with the idea that the extra money raised would be set aside in a trust fund to pay for future benefits when the baby boomers retired. However, Congress has repeatedly raided this trust fund and used the money for other purposes, keeping SS as a "pay-as-you-go" system rather than one that ran a surplus for a future rainy day.

Of course, when it comes to the government borrowing money for other purposes, nobody bats an eye. But if someone says that the government must borrow money to cover the shortages in the SS trust fund, all of a sudden the entire economy is going to collapse!

This is all a red herring, a canard, started by those whose ideological goal is to get rid of social security as a SECURITY program and instead use it to further enrich the banking and finance industry.

Governments borrow money all the time, and they pay it back. What do you think that savings bonds are? Now, I'm certainly concerned with the current levels of US debt, but it's just plain stupid to be overly concerned about borrowing a relatively small sum of money to shore up SS when we're literally pissing billions away on Cold War era weapons systems and a Star Wars boondoggle.

There are several ways of dealing with any shortfall in Social Security without drastically altering what is, at its essence, a good system. One would be to raise the limit of income that is subject to FICA taxes. The ceiling is currently only $86k. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently floated a proposal to raise the ceiling to $200k, but it was quickly shot down by the Bush administration. However, such a proposal is common-sense and would go a long way toward addressing any concerns about funding shortfalls. Another measure would be a federal law that completely separated the SS fund from the general budget, and made it illegal for Congress to use those funds for ANYTHING outside of Social Security. And yet another measure would be to restore Social Security to its original intent, which was a program to prevent poverty among the elderly (which was quite widespread when FDR started it), rather than a pure entitlement program. Seniors who already have healthy pensions and investment incomes coming in do NOT need social security as well. Of course, out of these three proposals, this third one is the least likely, because it would be incredibly unpopular. But there's no reason we couldn't move toward it over time.

But most of all, please stop perpetuating the rumor that Social Security is on the verge of bankruptcy and we have to do something drastic about it. That's just a RW meme, and the more we do to counter it the better off we'll ALL be in the long run.

[prairierose]

16. Thank you IrateCitizen. That is a very succinct explanation

to the perceived problems of SS. *'s plan is really the largest wealth transfer in history and the transfer is NOT in the direction of the common people. It is in the direction of his corporate whore supporters.

The real agenda here is to dismantle everything that is a progressive program. Everything that FDR & the progressives accomplished in the mid 20th c. Oh and to give the corporate whores one of the biggest windfalls they've had since the days of the S & L scam.

I could be wrong about how large a windfall that might be. There have been so many under shrub that is is hard to keep track of the figures but the long & short is that the only people who will benefit will be the banking, "finance" area and wall street, none of which are the friend of the common people.

[fob]

25. BZZZTT!! That will be a 10 point deduction for freeper talking points.

SS is NOT a ponzi scheme, it's not even an "investment", it's an insurance policy with the premium paid by today's workers and payouts to yesterday's workers. It's a very successful insurance policy with amost NO overhead that can be left alone for close to 50 years, so why would we let the "first MBA president" who says things like, "I know it's a budget because it's got lot's of numbers in it", ANYWHERE NEAR IT!! Just like any insurance policy there are 3 (sane) ways to keep it solvent, 1 - Raise the premium (in this case payroll tax), 2 -Decrease the payouts (which in 50 years with NO tinkering could still be paid at 80% - Although I'd hope that we'd strive for better than that) and 3 - Grow the economy and have more premium put into the system, you know, the way Clinton did with all the job GROWTH and stuff.

"If you set up such a program in the private sector, you would be arrested for fraud." No. If you set up such a program in the private sector you would be called an Insurance Company.

[crasmane]

15. Social Security is far from a ponzi scheme.

If you want to know anything about ponzi schemes, look at credit cards. Look at all those solicitations for people with questionable credit. It's a classic ponzi scheme in which you've got to constantly spread the sales and get more and more people on board so the central few can enrich themselves.
Social Security enriches no one, really.
It's one of the most solvent, most fairly administrated government programs in existence & has been for a long time. If anything, Social Security doesn't serve enough of the eligible.
A ponzi scheme it is not.

[LynnTheDem]

8. That "SS = Ponzi scheme" myth sure is widely accepted

Does the US govt plan to defraud us by making pretend investments of our SS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS?

And of course SS is NOT an investment, real or pretend; it's a FLAT PAYROLL DEDUCTION.

And white men can't dance.

[lastliberalintexas]

9. Incorrect on so many levels

Social Security is not any kind of investment scheme. It is a pay as you go plan whereby the current generation of workers primarily pays for the current monies provided to SS recipients. There is no intent to defraud "investors" as one would see in a Ponzi scheme.

Why would you repeat those kinds of right wing lies about SS? Hmmm...

[Iris]

12. Ponzi scheme?

Maybe you're on the wrong forum.

[MADem]

13. No one talks about the Social Contract aspect any more

Truth is, without social security, gramma would not be living in her little one bedroom with her pals down in FL, she'd be living with YOU, as would Aunt Iris, Uncle Dennis, and all of the other geezers with no where to go and no cash in the bank.

Everyone is so concerned with the bottom line, but the bottom line really is, you can pay now and give the geezers some dignity and respect, or you can pay later and have your kids shove over to give Uncle, Auntie and grampa a place at the table and a bed upon which to lay their gray heads. And those will be the "lucky" geezers...the rest will be off to the workhouse!

The GOP are a bunch of coldhearted assholes...family values, my ass!

[hfojvt]

14. dignity and respect?

I think they would have more of both if they were part of the family. I love social programs, but one of the tragedies of them is that people get help from the government when they could get help from their families and/or friends. Social programs should be for people who need them, those who have no family or friends able to help. The "able" part is another drawback. That is, some people are unable to help their family or friends because of their big screen TV or their new SUV, etc.
Admit it, the way you call them geezers and talk about their "gray heads", you do not put them in Florida because you want to give them dignity and respect. You (we) do it because we do not want to deal with them.

[Iris]

18. Speak for yourself.

We discussed having my inlaws move a little closer to us - not even in with us - and my mother-in-law didn't speak to us for a month!

I'm sure all the elderly people you respect so much would LOVE to hear your plan that they move in with their kids or nieces and nephews just to save you from having to pay into a fund they gladly paid into in their working days.

[IrateCitizen]

19. Nice sidestep of the issue/argument at hand...

Social Security was created to address the very real problem of widespread poverty among the elderly back in the 1930's. While it has somewhat gone beyond that in the years since, that is still the underlying theme. Like the previous poster said, it's part of the social contract that emerged out of the New Deal -- that society works a helluva lot better when we all help take care of each other, as opposed to every man, woman and child for themselves.

Your argument about people "not wanting" their parents is a canard. Many retired people CHOOSE to go to FL, not because their children pack them off down there. I think you're confusing retirement communities with dilapidated rest homes. After all, if a senior can avoid spending winters shut indoors in the Northeast or Great Lakes regions, why in the hell wouldn't they?

I think most seniors in FL -- including my parents (they're snowbirds) and my wife's grandmother (year-round) would tell you they're in FL because they WANT to be there, not because their kids have banished them.

[MADem]

21. Your post says it all

I know so many people who just have total JOY over going to their goofy, totally-fun-to-them little enclaves in FLA...it is the highlight of their lives. Banish, SMANSISH!! They try to find ways of avoiding their kids, who want to descend upon them during school vacations, and hit all the theme parks!

Why can't people who worked their asses off all their lives have these small joys? I'll bet if they forfeited their right to vote in exchange for their monthly check, the GOP would be happy to pay their SS check, with fabulous Cost of Living Increases, for their silence.

[Iris]

22. Yep. Never understood the appeal of retiring to FL until

I considered my relatives spent winters in Cleveland digging out of snow.

[MADem]

20. Let me make myself clear to you

I AM a GEEZER. I am RETIRED, and wear the distinction with great pride. Here is my point---you pay into the social contract, which takes care of your parents, and you expect the next lot to pay in to take care of you. Never mind that YOU must work longer to pay in, the point is that you have fulfilled your part of the bargain, and the next group should also so do. Otherwise, make a space for granny in the basement, and tell the sitter to check her every now and again.

I do not think, in this day and age, that granma or granpa should be reduced to living, shoved in a corner, with their kids if they do not ABSOLUTELY have to....or WANT to. Far better they have a wee one bedroom near a par three public golf course in Florida...nothing fancy, nothing ornate, but dignity, respect, freedom. Why not? Why deny them the dignity of independence?

Most geezers do not want to live with their kids, they do not want to be a piece of furniture that is shuffled from one kid to the next, they want THEIR LIFE, THEIR FRIENDS, THEIR OWN FUN. Kids are GREAT, but they are not ALL. Some kids do not get this--you do not stop being a human once you become a parent. And once the selfish little bastards are grown, you do not stop being a human who likes to live and laugh.

Their families should not be put in a position of having to owe them a safe old age. All that is doing is SHIFTING THE BURDEN. Most people could not give their parents the life they now have, thanks to Social Security. They'd be changing diapers, doing dishes, whatever, into late old age, when they should be golfing and going to the early bird special. The fucking government owes them payback from their FICA payments, which, if not looted to pay for a bullshit war, would be fine for three quarters of a century.

It IS a social contract, managed by the goverment, for lo these many years. The only thing wrong with it right now is that BushCo isn't putting ANY money into the account--even though we PAY it to him and his buddies--they steal it, and divert it to their own ends.

We bought it, we own it, and I happen to LIKE it. You have every right to disagree, but this particular gray head would rather have liberty than a cosseted life in a tolerated prison of well-meaning, blood-related, tolerating (PLEASE, DIE SOON!!!) juniors. I am fortunate in that I don't have to deal with that, but I can relate to those that do. It's a bigger killer than cholesterol. You don't need that shit sucking out your soul when you are dealing with the usual bullshit of aging.

Give me friken liberty....there's no other option.
Ya gotta have freedom, dignity, and respect. Nothing happens until that happens. Why fuck with something that works, unless you don't want us geezers to do interesting shit, like, say, VOTE....?

[regularjoe]

17. My favorite part of SS

You know, taking money from yourself, spending it, and then paying yourself back with interest. right...

From <http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm>

Q.
Is there really a Social Security trust fund?

A.

Yes. Presently, Social Security collects more in taxes than it pays in benefits. The excess is borrowed by the U.S. Treasury, which in turn issues special-issue Treasury bonds to Social Security. These bonds totaled $1.5 trillion at the beginning of 2004, and Social Security receives more than $80 billion annually in interest from them. However, Social Security is still basically a "pay-as-you-go" system as the $1.5 trillion is a small percent of benefit obligations.

[Iris]

23. Yep. At an average 7.5% interest rate return.

Wouldn't any financial planner think this was a good rate over a lifetime of investing?

[gcole]

24. kick

n/t

[housewolf]

26. Link?

Thanks for the extract of the article. Could you please post a link to the article so I could read the whole thing?

Thanks,