Millions of Americans get by on Social Security alone

[AJH032]

just came across this artlce on Yahoo News. If there's any doubt that privatization would hurt a lot more people than it would help, let this evidence be the proof to settle it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050816/bs_usatoday/millionsofamericansgetbyonsocialsecurityalone

Here's a snip:

When Social Security was launched 70 years ago Sunday, it was meant to be a supplement for retirees, not a full pension. But today, 10.6 million people, or 22% of the 48 million who will receive Social Security benefits this year, live on that check alone, the Social Security Administration says.
Living on only Social Security isn't a happy prospect. It means stretching every dollar, depending on a patchwork of family, charity and state programs to pay for what Social Security doesn't cover - and sometimes doing without. Those living on nothing but Social Security are often single women and minorities. AARP, the senior advocacy group, says 25% of retired women, including 46% of unmarried Hispanic women, have no income beyond Social Security. AARP also says 33% of retired African-Americans live on Social Security alone.

[sendero]

1. This is why....

.... privatization is never going to happen.

Millions upon millions of baby boomers have absolutely nothing but their SS to retire on. As defined benefit plans morphed into defined contributions plans, many Americans quietly dropped out of the pension system actually planning to retire on SS.

That is of course not what SS was intended for but the numbers don't lie. Many Americans have nothing to cling to but SS - and they might sleep through a cockamamie war, but you mess with their life line and you will see popular activism on a scale never seen before.

Believe me, the congressCritter know this and that is why Bush**'s SS "reform" is truly DEAD ON ARRIVAL.

The fact that Bush** doesn't see that is testament to his utter lack of understanding of what is really going on in America.

[barb162]

2. Although I basically agree

remember a few months ago Bush said he wouldn'nt touch benefit levels for people in certain older age groups. I can no longer remember the cutoffs but it was a definite attempt to get large numbers of older babyboomers off his back. That's his way of splitting the opposition. He does know what he's doing. I hope he is totally unsuccesasful as there is NOTHING wrong with SS as it is.

[sendero]

3. People ...

.... do not trust Bush** on this issue. This is one area where "nuance" works against the Repugs. Nobody believes their nuanced story.

Seriously, I'm worried about a lot of stuff, by SS is not in there :)

[barb162]

4. I am worried about it because he is not bringing in enough tax revenue

and he's spending like a wild man on Iraq and other crap. If the dollar really tanks or there is another terrorist attack, he will go again at SS and other benefit programs.

[Hidden Stillness]

5. They Rip Every Lifeline Away From You, Yet Social Security Alone Remains

This affects millions of people, and you never hear about it from the grinning media sluts searching for the next fad on TV. Most women (who had paying jobs for any length of time at all) retire with no pensions--they were lucky if they got unpaid days off--and anyone with a minimum wage job cannot possibly have savings. There is also the entire category of the disabled on Social Security, who could not have had another source of income. This is more common than you may think, and so Bush's money-wasting "ChooseToSave" ad campaign shit on TV addresses nothing, as these people have nothing to save.

[barb162]

6. "ChooseTo Save" is as sickening as "Ownership Society"

empty, doublethink, inapplicable BS,etc., when all he does is steal from the poor and middle class to benefit the rich and corporations. How can a person save or own anything when they work the crappy jobs being created under his administration? Save when you work at Wal-Mart?