Why does media print GOP lie that there is a problem in Soc Security ??

Can the media not start a reprint of a Bush/GOP PR Blurb by saying that the following is a lie?

The key fact is that there is no problem to address – at least no obvious problem. The “Reagan demanded and passed in 84 increase in the Social Security retirement age from 65 to 67” stabilized the system to 2042 at least and quite likely forever. The current Soc Secururity Trustee Report projection of a low GDP out year growth assumption of 1.6% is a nice conservative assumption that gives an early warning if things are going wrong (via changes in the annual Soc Security Trustees Report). But using in the financial projections a more realistic GDP growth assumption that is more in line with US History shows everyone that there is no problem,and that therefore there is NOTHING TO FIX in Social Security. (Sourced as to facts:Congressional Budget Office Report "The Outlook for Social Security" at: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=0 )

And this months scare talk amplified by the GOP loving media is the ratio of workers to those getting a benefit in the future - never noting that at 2 to 1 there is no problem. Some how the fact that Soc Sec does more than retirement, and that the financial projections that take into account all the various OASDI benefits income and outflow show no problem, gets lost in the need of the Bush administration to sell - via a partial truth lie repeated without thought/analysis/or ethics by the media. A media gift to the rich via a yet another supporting of the screwing of the middle class and poor. A partial truth lie – like telling a truth like the 2 to 1 eventual ratio – is the only “truth” that ever comes out of the Bush administration. But the bottom line is the financial projection – and that “truth” is just not going to be discussed by Bush, media,and other friends because it shows no problem.

As an aside – increasing the normal retirement age meets 2 social goals – keeping folks that want to work under the age discrimination laws so that employers can not screw them because they are old, and keeping the ratio closer to 3 to 1 rather than 2 to 1. This ratio decrease is shown to scare folks – as are all Bush “partial truths” when the solution, if needed, is a minor age adjustment.

And the laugh – if you like to cry while you laugh – is the how the media is ignoring that Bush plans the fix – an increase for normal retirement so as to pay less to folks that retire at 62 – while then cutting SS even more so as to enhance his gift to the rich.

===========================================================
From the Washington Monthly:
Most of the young people I know -- including myself until very recently -- HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN by a decades-long effort on behalf of privatizers into believing that Social Security is in "crisis," and that if we do nothing the system will "go bankrupt" before we retire, meaning that the system will somehow collapse and we won't get any benefits.

I... learned that the "problem" was either
(a) fairly MODEST and quite solvable or
(b) NOT a problem at all.

*SOCIAL SECURITY AND ME....Matt Yglesias makes an important point about Social Security framing today*:

Washington Monthly
December 17, 2004

I'm not sure the older liberals who run the show quite understand how overwhelmingly important it is to keep the "there is no crisis" message front and center in the Social Security debate. Most of the young people I know -- including myself until very recently -- have been taken in by a decades-long effort on behalf of privatizers into believing that Social Security is in "crisis," and that if we do nothing the system will "go bankrupt" before we retire, meaning that the system will somehow collapse and we won't get any benefits.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is true, and I used to be one of these people too. As a well-informed citizen, I knew that Social Security was unsustainable, that life expectancies were increasing, that fewer workers would be supporting more retirees in the future, and in general, that the program was facing a demographic timebomb that would cause it to go bankrupt within a couple of decades.

This was back in the mid-90s, and for some reason I took an interest in finding out more. So I wrote off for a copy of the trustees report, read up on tax policy and demographic projections, pored through various analyses, and -- to my surprise -- learned that the problem was either (a) fairly modest and quite solvable or (b) not a problem at all.
==========================================================

When the complete total factual picture does not fit the GOP/rich screw the middle class program, Bush and the GOP start to “Lie by telling a partial truth” – namely saying that there was a 47:1 ratio of workers to retirees when SS began and now there is less than 3:1. While 3 to 1 is a correct statement, it is also a meaningless statement if it is being used to say Social Security has a major financial problem. All these fear producing partial facts fold to nothing when they are included in the financial projections, and those financial projections then show there is no problem with Social Security.

The Actuaries say there is no immediate problem, and only a modest long term problem that may also not exist since to even get the long term problem the Actuaries used an out year 1.6% GDP growth assumption – about half the US historical result – and a higher GDP growth assumption makes even the 2043 (of 2052 if you prefer the GAO projection to the Soc Sec Trustees projection) problem go away.

There is no problem.

The private accounts do nothing to improve Soc Security current or future finances.

The huge cuts in Soc Security benefits that Bush wants as part of the “total package” is indeed the gift to the rich – as it prevents the real Social Security improving finance option of removing the payroll tax wage cap and taxing all wages while giving an increased SS benefit for those top dollar earnings. Because of the progressive nature of Soc Security, the end to the wage cap is a real threat to the rich as the increased tax take exceeds the value of the increased benefits that would be paid to the rich, lowering the cost for the rest of us. The goal of the rich and GOP is to label anything not helping the rich as welfare.

Indeed as the rich own most of the assets in this country, along with the Courts, the Executive, and the Legislative branches via the GOP, it would make sense to have a dedicated tax on those Government expenses that are really just asset protection expenses – meaning just about all the cost of Government - from Defense to CIA to the contracts given corporations under the pretend of solving – or studying - some social problem – should be paid for via a “dedicated tax on assets”. It would fit the language the GOP are trying to use about Social Security funding being limited to a dedicated payroll tax.

Class Warfare is endorsed by the GOP – if it is a war of the rich on the middle-class that the media can be told to ignore.

the 40 trillion dollar cost of Medicare in 40 years. and the Insurance Cartels will take the rest...

they are covering their fellow thieves assed..the ones who give them all the campaign contributions..

The lack of ability to call a statement a lie seems like a bit of a bias when this problem does not show it's self with "Did Gore really wear a Brown suit while inspecting with FEMA" election 2000 questions, or "is there an SUV owned by wife that we can accuse Kerry of hiding" election 2004 questions.

It is only GOP lies that the media lacks the ability to question when reporting - question at the same time in the same article - any Bush screw the middle class idea.

Don't you realize that "the media" today is just a bunch of guys sitting around, waiting to get their emails from the RNC telling them what to "report" on?

take whatever the Republicans fax to them as gospel and to ask the most spineless and inarticulate Democrat they can find to comment on it.

This has been parodied as, "First up to talk about the benefits of genocide, we turn to Joseph Goebbels."

he messing with Social Security to eclipse RR? Undo what he did?

I sometimes wonder if this is about the GOP, or just about Dubya.