AARP says that Social Security will be solvent until 2053

If it is left alone.

I dont know what the problem is if thats the case, as all of the baby boomers will be dead at that point, and the rate of people paying into social security at that point should be wnough to take care of those who are retired.

Where the real problem is. Republicans dont want to have to pay back all of the IOU's that are in the trust fund. Estimates od what has been taken out of the trust fund since the incepetion
of Social Security range from 26 trillion to 43 trillion. some estimates as high as in the 70 trillions
While the boomers were working, the trust fund wasoverloaded with money, and rather than simply put it away or even do something to earn interest on it. the money was used to run the government without having to raise income taxes.

In fact every Republican based tax sut has been based on taking money from the trust fund and use it to give large tax breaks to the rich, in far greater sums then they ever put money into the trust fund.

What Clinton did was to raise taxes on the rich and then put the money back into the trst fund
which is what created a massive surplus in just under eight years.

Even if they simply pass a law only allowing the trust fund to be tapped to run the governemnt but render it totally untouchable to give tax cuts, Social Security would be more than solvent.

If they ever actually managed to put back every cent they took out of the trust fund, they could actually drop the retirement age to 60. increase the monthly payments and actually stop colllecting payroll taxes for the next 20 years and keep Social Security solvent well into the retirements of Generation X.

the government will never go broke. But it does have to pay back from where it borrowed....as I understand it

That why Gore keep using the "lock box" analogy, Keep you sticky fingers out.

They didn't invent this statistic, this is the revised statement from the federal gov't. Soc. Security is not at all in trouble, and those who say it is are trying to get a piece of it as welfare for the financial services industry -- welfare for Schwab, if you like.

There is no lock box.

Well now that's really shitty timing! :grr:

Tell your Senators and Congressman to remove the Social Security cap on taxable wages.

It was projected to be solvent until 2070 with Clinton in the WH. With the current shitbirds we have running the country, I'm amazed they only knocked 13 years off of that.

In 1996 Bob Dole bragged that in 1983 he and Tip O'Neill saved SS and it is now projected to be solvent till "2020 or beyond". Thn it went up to 2030 , then the "crisis" by 2000 was held off till 2037 and as of 2 years ago it was projected to be 100% solvent till 2042 based on 1.7% economic growth which is obviousilly 1/2 what growth has averaged the last 10 years.

Greenspan , Cavuto (tonight infact!), and many many others want to cut it so badly, raid it so badly , scam it into Wallstreet so badly , undermine it so badly , that they are URGENTLY pushing a major scheme before it gets projected to be solvent much further out than already.

Even when it was projected to only be solvent till 2020 , a lifting of the $85,000 per year 12.4% contribution limit would have kept is safe nearly forever.

I think that a raising of the payroll tax to about 14% (the SS portion is 12.4% , Medicare is 3.9% with no ceiling) and deduction the first $10,000 from taxation while lifting the maximum taxable yearly income from around $85,000 to $250,000 will easily keep it safe forever.

The problem is that the government finds it easy to raid the SS trust fund and every cut will be raided ASAP. Just like the 1997 Medicare gutting Kerry voted for (to "save it" it only required $65 billion in cuts over a 5 year period , the cuts were $135 billion total including about $100 from part A) , it didnt go into a trust fund but instead was raided.

With our national debt so high , we simply "must" raid every penny we can or else jack up interest rates to incentivise investors to purchase treasury bonds. That will jack up the debt even higher with compounding loads from higher interest rates. Once the boomers retire, we are screwed anyway.Interest rates will go through the roof and I predict a $2 trillion yearly deficit by 2020.Took us 200 year to have a TOTAL 1 trillion debt now we have done that in 18 months and by 2020 it will be done in 6 months.

Bottom line:::SS is in superb shape but the government is in shitty shape. Cavuto had the nerve to say SS has ruined our childrens futures with massive deb(!).

What a lier!!!!!!


(Clinton never paid a cent back but he reduced raiding in his last years , however every year we raided at least some trust fund money)

EDIT: Need to point out that medicare was projected in 1997 to be fast dying but it even then only needed $65 billion in cuts over 5 years. Honestly it didnt need any cuts in hindsight (it was a mad rush to gut scheme like SS is today, as projections were even more conservative budget scoring crocks then than even now with mass hysteria as the goal,mission acomplished). Plus the healthcare system is an overpriced mess. We could have expanded Medicare , not cut it with proper policys in place.

people--an unbelievably huge and successful scam. Greenspan invented it when he was chairman of Reagan's Social Security Commission in 1982, but very few people have caught on, even after more than twenty years.

Social Security cannot be really secure until it has been taken off the "honor system". The Social Security Act says that workers must pay into FICA, but it does not set up any "pre-funding" mechanism so that positive FICA cash flow can be set aside for baby-boomers' retirement.From 1979 to 1989, GREENSPAN AND REAGAN RAISED THE FICA RATE BY TWENTY-TWO PERCENT, from 5.08 percent apiece for worker and employer to 6.2 percent apiece (see http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/HOP/hopi.htm ). Since the maximum earnings to which FICA applied rose over the period from $22,900 to $48,000, 22 percent is an UNDERESTIMATE of the true regressive payroll tax increase.

This huge tax increase on the poor and middle class generated a substantial FICA surplus, which Reagan and company used to fund a SIXTY PERCENT DECREASE IN INCOME TAX RATES FOR THE WEALTHIEST (from 70 percent to 28 percent). This was the most successful large-scale theft in history, and still very few of us victims even realize what we've lost.

Unless first some "pre-funding" mechanism is established to keep the remaining FICA surplus from continuing to be used in the scam, any "reform" just increases the rip-off. It would be much better to cut FICA rates so that just enough was taken from workers to pay retirees each year than to raise FICA rates or delay retirement ages. Raising the FICA surplus just plays into the hands of the plutocrats until there's some way to keep them from STEALING it.

I still cant get anybody to believe tax rates were 70% (I thought they were 77% actualy)in 1981 then cut to 28% by 1986. (cant get anybody to believe the 70% fact)

Clinton raised it from 31% to 39% and they (conservatives and everybody infact) act like it was some hug deal. The top 400 income earners however saw their tax burden DROP under Clinton from 26% down to 22%.loopholes.

The sad thing is that even with all the SS money to raid in the 1980s, the UNIFIED (!) budget shortfalls went through the roof from $80 billion to $290 billion. And unified means with the ability to raide SS and not report the true deficits.Real hortfalls were nearly half a trillion per year by the time King George I left office in 1993.

cash flow than what Greenspan, Reagan, and both Bushes squandered it on. If Republicans are going to hold fast against pre-funding for Baby Boomers' retirement, I'd prefer the simplest solution: cut FICA rates to just enough to pay current retirement obligations, especially during recessions.

There never was a trust fund. SS surplus dollars are converted into special issue treasury bonds which are then immediately spent on govt programs. It has always been that way as long as there has been a SS surplus. Putting more money in this "trust fund" will just mean that more money gets spent. The govt is loaning it self money to spend.

According to SSA, the surpluses disappear in 2018. There is no trust fund. We have always converted every dime of the SS surplus into special issue t-bills that are then immediately spent on federal programs.

When the surpluses are gone, we either begin raising taxes or cut benefits in order to start supplying the funding that is supposed to come from the t-bills. In 2042, we will have then paid back to ourselves the last t-bill.

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

...any given year then I consider that not raiding SS , so IMO Clinton did "stop raidng SS" for a while , though it did ASAP (like a split second) go into other things , namely (in those years) reducing the public debt.As long as we were actualy paying down the public debt then that could have theoreticaly meant that say 10 years down the road we could have ended the public debt , and the savings in interest payments on that (which are a bitch to pay , this is the debt that requires high interest bonds to attract investers , unlike our SS "trust fund" bonds)would have been tremendous and thus paying the SS funds when they come due would be easy as the payouts on that would be considerably cheaper than the public debt interest payments. In that since Clinton did stop raidng the funds. Infact Clintons final fiscal year unified budget (the year that ended October 1st 2001) was the closest to a "true balance" we had in decades with the total debt only increasing $18 billion from $5,656,000,000 to $5,674,000,000 and the public debt going down some $237 billion (that was our "surplus").

As for your "surpluses disappear in 2018" and ultimate 2042 end of world scenario , a little background is needed.

Remember that we have budget scoring and it can vary dramaticaly. Remember 1995 when the CBO was ultra conservative and the claim was that $812 billion in program cuts over 7 years were required to "balance the budget" (unified budget which stil would have left a REAL $275 billion debt increase by 2002)and we were told Medicare was going broke by 2002? Social Security was supposed to be broke BEFORE 2020. The GOP claimed over $150 billion in Medicare cuts were required to "save it" , but then the Medicare Trusties showed that even conservativly only $89 billion in cuts were required over 7 years to make the program solvent forever.

By 1997, the CBO decided that the $812 billion in cuts was wrong and only $350 billion was required for a unified "balance" (again that stil meant a BIG real increase in debt just for the so called 2002 "balanced year")and Medicare cuts need not have been even $89 billion (and all of this was even AFTER nothing was done but partisan wrangling and gridlock for 2 years which theoreticaly should have made problems a little worse with supposed cuts over 1995-1997 saving money on interest).

So then the Congress and President started getting private REAL analysis that the budget was going to balance itself and no cuts were required to anything.Afterall even by then the deficit was torpedoing to a shocking low of $23 billion for 1997. So congress put together a fictional "balanced budget" (which was nothing more than a regular budget except spending INCREASED more than it had since the 1980s , so much for "painful decisions")that had $300 billion in fake cuts (just projected cuts in the out years for discresionary spnding, knowing they wouldnt be cut by then)and a REAL draconian cut to Medicare of $135 billion over the next 5 years even despite the fact that no cuts were required in Medicare (true in 1997 SOME cuts were supposed to have been necessary due to conservative scoring , but nowhere near $135 billion,it just makes me sick and pissed since the 1995 $89 billion cuts were realized as too high and not necessary even by 1997)combined with an $85 billion tax cuts (actualy $135 but its a LONG story,Ill skip that one)for a total CLAIMED savings of "$350 billion" over 5 years.

The truth is that the deficit then was scored by CBO as having raised spending so much that the balanced budget was actualy delayed 4 years from 1998-2002!!!!! Some "balanced budget" . All it did was increase spending (on tax cuts mainly) combined with a savage cut to Medicare. (YES this is the plan Kerry bragged about voting for in in 3rd debate with Bush, yet another reason why I HATE both partys especially the elites)

The economy was on such a roll that the *unified* budget balanced in 1998 anyway ,infact had a $70 billion "surplus". The budget scoring was far too conservative then. We wre told that by 2002 the best we could hope for was a *unified* budget "balance" when infact by 2001 we had a near *total budget* balance ($237 billion *unified* surplus which for a single year was unheard of, especially with no real cuts except to Medicare,and remember they had no business including Medicare in the federal budget as it is self financed through FICA , they cut Medicare to RAID IT not "save it"). The point is we were told in 1995 that to reduce the deficit from $160 bilion to balance would be as painful as shitting bricks. WE actualy made not only that $160 billion swing without any cuts (again aside from Medicare) but infact overshot it by 250% with another $237 billion in FY 2001.

NOW ,finally Social Security is being scored conservativly when they say 2042 is when we cant fully fund it (mind you we can still fund most benefits according to the 4 decade *conservative* forward projection , just not 100%), as economic growth is projected at an average of only 1.7%. Its been twice that in the last 20 years on average, so 1.7% is just too low by any resonable estimate. Its easy to know growth wont be that low because our population is projected to be 397 billion by 2050 , there is no way a population growth of that magnitude will be combined with only 1.7% economic growth.

Im telling you, this same group told us that SS would be broke by 2020 8 years ago.Now every year projects it more accuratly and AARP probabily has the nail on the head. A liberal estimate could project it to be safe forever.

The baby boomers are the greatest challenge an as the author of this thread tells us , most will be dead by 2042. Frankly I think the 1.7% economic growth was just a roost to enable us to claim the program can theoreticaly "go broke" so we can keep this BIG LIE alive enough that a stupid and uninformed will believe any twisting and BS the elite will try to justify by exploiting and exagerating the semi-tricky period in Social Securitys history due to the baby boomer soon retirement. Even then the CURRENT Social Security program can pass the test with flying colors while our politicians try and find every way to screw us out of a great and well designed program with no financial problems whatsoever. And what really pissed the politicians of BOTH partys off and their corperate bosses is that this is a program that EVERYBODY knows about and can easily acess. Even the seemingly simple EITC many dont know about , and 98% of the tiny amount of middle class programs are hidden and unknown.

The problem is what happens to the Federal Government when, instead of $200+ Billion per year coming INTO the Federal Treasury, spent on the military and replaced with IOUs, we'll have $200+ Billion coming OUT of the Federal Treasury to redeem said IOUs.

Most likely scenario: Massive Inflation as the Federal Gov't prints money at about $1 Trillion/yr.

The wealthy elites have us in massive consumer debt. Inflation only was instituted when the middle class actualy had savings. Consumer debt is at -5% and growing fast.


Expect massive cts to the EITC , Social Security , and Medicare (hough they are self financed with FICA ALL elites want us to think they are responsible for our deficit,though its quite the contrary)to avoid us having to repay the trust fund money.As well as all other social programs.


AS long as the government can keep the money flowing , even with massive budget shortfalls , inflation can be kept in check.

The economy is $12 trillion GDP per year and will be twice that by 2020 at least.

I project a $2 trillion yearly budget shortfall by then despite gutting social programs but that is still less than 10% GDP which is managable.

Republican Michigan stated in the house, telecast on CSPan on I believe October 5th (I am unsure whether it was the 4th or 5th), that is what is wrong with America is the huge payments to Medicare and Social Security.

He had all his charts and graphs with him.

Its true Medicare and SS tax in as much revenue as the federal income tax per year (I havnt looked at a pie chart in years but Id say both are about 40% of total none borrowed revenue).

If you read the book "Take the rich off welfare" then you will find that $500 billion to $800 billion per year is spent on corperate loopholes and the REAL AFDC (Aid to Fatcats with Dependant Corperations).

Fankly I consider interest payments to be corperate wellfare too (well...elite fatcat welfare anyway).

Take away that and all other tax credits , cuts , loopholes (for poor and middel class as well) and use the money to reduce the tax burden across the board (or whatever , just as a way to measure) and you find income taxes can be reduced 60% , so by that measure FICA is 2.5 times the federal budget most of which goes to "defence" , homeland "security" , and pison/cop /fbi regimes.

Guess since middle class programs are a thing of the past , the true tax revenue is quite low (though the total state ,local , and federal burden crushes the poor , the rich have VERY low taxation) and thus FICA does seem quite "expensive" though its under 13% of the average persons income (15.3% but it has a ceiling at $84,000)and is solvent (YES SOLVENT!) and will always be so even with massive elderly populations living long lives.

If we controlled health care costs , banned insurance companys ,made drugs and technology public domain with 95% cost reduction(in drugs anyway) and didnt let the last year of a seniors life consume some 50% of our senior health care spending (Kevorkian was a man way ahead of his time , and rather moderate IMO) , then the 13% could be reduced dramaticaly or we could expand care by leaps and bounds.

since FICA is split 50-50 between an employee and employer. I somehow suspect a reduction in the employer's FICA rate wouldn't always makes its way to an employee's check.

it is the employee who "pays." When I calculate raises, I must consider the employer part of SS/Medicare, pluse FLUC, Futa, worker's comp, medical benefits, etc.

Then we can say we get SS for free. /sarcasm They are two pockets of the same pair of pants.

are the same ones who said the medicare bill was great

They said it was better than no bill at all. They said pass it and then worry about fixing it.

Big difference.

Some things are best done right or not at all.

Social Security is pay as you go with a big surplus, unlike most other government spending. Kerry's stance is absolutely correct that we should not mess with it right now, but just try to reduce the overall deficit and monitor it for possible small tweaks later on down the line.

Greenspan, Cavuto, Bush and Company are robber barons trying to steal money to benefit their Wall Street cronies and boost the markets.

SS has major unfunded liabilities. Don't believe me? Ask Social Security :

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

law says they must do. But that's a HUGE "if". Just ask yourself two questions:

(1) Will future Congresses be able to meet their Social Security obligations, financially and politically?

The "Social Security Trust Fund" has about a trillion dollars in positive cash flow ahead until 2015, but it remains on the honor system. Official projections of SS retirement cash flow (below) show that Social Security OASDI will keep running annual surpluses until sometime between 2015 and 2020. The trouble is, there's now no way for the government to SAVE the positive cash flow for the future, when it will turn negative. Bill Clinton tried to establish centrally-managed "pre-funding", like state pension funds in California or Wisconsin, but a Republican Congress rejected that solution as 'SOCIALISM'! After 2015, the cash flow goes negative, and gets below negative half a trillion dollars a year about twenty five years from now.

If President Kerry and his immediate successor managed to save the remaining FICA cash flow to "pre-fund" Social Security, or used it to pay down the deficit, we'd be in good shape for future Congresses to meet their obligations over the following decade or so. But if there still were no pre-funding of SS and little capacity left to borrow, baby boomers would have to wage generational war against workers and taxpayers to get their due.

(2) What would happen if future Congresses did not appropriate all the funds Social Security has been promised? It's not as if workers could stop paying FICA. The 'Trust Fund' instruments are not Wall Street, publicly held bonds, that would ruin Treasury's ability to raise money if Congress defaulted on them.

So the chance that future Congresses could and would meet their current obligations to Social Security over the next generation are pretty good with sane fiscal management over the next decade. But if we keep putting complete morons in charge of the Treasury, the remaining positive FICA cash flow will be squandered on tax cuts for the wealthy and aggression against non-Christian countries, and count on Social Security going broke within twenty years or so.

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

From http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/VI_OASDHI_dollars.html

Table VI.F10: Calendar year and annual OASDI cash flow
(In billions of Dollars, Intermediate Assumptions)

2005 88
2010 102
2015 46

2020 -85
2025 -281
2030 -512

2035 -747
2040 -960
2045 -1,193

2050 -1,488
2055 -1,905
2060 -2,455

The massive credit card craze (by the late 90s we actualy moved into negative territory in consumer credit for the first time in near eternity)has crushed the middle class with 20% interest rates compounding endlessly.


Our governments desire to steal money that isnt its own.

Our governments congresscritters and countrys elite totally spasing out at the FICA taxes (Medicare and SS are under 13% though). (though they spas out at all middle class programs with easy acess)

NOW THE COMMON SENSE PART

We could have had governemnt sponsored consumer credit cards at 10% interest rates using SS surplus money. It would have brought in twice as much SS interest money (government lends itself SS money at a steal, Id love to "purchase" bonds at that rate plus neve have to pay back principle just measly 4% interest payments)and that would have been all that much more to raid plus "we" (the government)maybe could have left a little in the trust fund(though it wouldnt get interest if it just sat there , but the interest the govenment pays is shitty though).

The reduction in crushing credit card consumer debt on the poor and middle class would have enabled the money to go into the economy instead of elite fat cat bankers who dont do shit for the economy but infact harm it while hoarding the nations wealth.

Stronger economy means more wealth and more wealthy means even stronger economy.A spiral that requires foreign workers to fill all the jobs. More remittances strengthens the world economy and creates even more wealth and demand for products which creates even more jobs.

Stronger SS program too.

Comon sense died a long time ago.

The trick is paying it back when its needed.

With our current elite (media, fed reserve, congress, senate,etc.)its unlikly it will be paid back. Despite cheap interest rates , which should mean that SS should have the right to withdraw whenever it wants too.

Expect massive cuts in the program.

Technicaly the SS trust fund doesnt exist , very very true. Sadly.

You could say our $7.5 trillion national debt is just around 4 trillion if we just decide to end the SS program. Public debt is wht....$4.3 trillion or what? Total debt is $7.4 Im sure.

at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR03/VI_cyoper_history.html .

"Table VI.A4.--Historical Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, Calendar Years 1957-2002"

Notice how since 1983 a fictitious "interest" amount, added to inflate the pot of money available to be stolen from FICA each year, has skyrocketed. Thus for the last year in the series, 2002, the FICA cash flow is listed as $165.4 billion. $80.4 billion (in "interest" never paid to a "Trust Fund" that doesn't exist) must be subtracted, to make the figure comparable to the projections I cited in post #14. I haven't totaled the annual "Social Security surpluses" already stolen, but it sure looks like trillions since the scam started.

No wonder the Republicans have a foundation to build statues of Reagan everywhere! Just think of all that poor families did without over the last twenty years to fund "tax cuts" for the very wealthy from their paychecks: Decent housing, safe neighborhoods, good schools, college educations, vacations--what a ripoff.

and exactly what would it be invested in?

Don't we spend the SS surplus as soon as it comes in now? In order to invest the surplus, would we need to cut spending?

instead depositing a stream of Federal revenues into an investment fund. This fund could be spent ONLY on Social Security and ONLY after the FICA cash flow turns negative in ten or fifteen years.

Bill Clinton's economic advisers suggested modeling such a TRUE Social Security Trust Fund on the Federal employees "Thrift Savings Plan" or state employee pension funds in California or Wisconsin. Small fractions of government money from FICA and eventually from general revenues would be invested conservatively in publicly traded instruments such as common stocks, Treasury bonds, and high-grade corporate bonds.

Because many of the baby boomers have had trashy lives... Smoking, drugs, all that. Life expectancy in the US is not that high anymore, compared to other countries. Mainly due to the obesity epidemics. I'll post a link if I remember where I saw the report.

No fucking way *I'M* eating catfood when I'M 96!

That would cause the elite propagandists to shit their proverbial pants . Scratch that.....shit their LITERAL pants.


Truth be told , I think we could leave it at 65 at least (it will go up to 67 for thouse born after 1960 and 66 for post 1950 births).

Cavuto said after a long dom and gloom rant (about the "SS system" being a train wreck)that their were 2 options to "save Social Security". Raising the retirement age OR cutting benefits (3rd way he offered.."or both").

And lets start by mentioning that he was saying this was required just to keep "the SS system" from going bankrupt. FALSE , its safe till well beyond 2050 you lying sack of shit.

Secondly we could probabilly keep the age at 65 (by raising he means over and beyond 67 which means 69-70)and not make a single change to the system.

Heck , lets just lift the taxable income limit to an unlimited ceiling. The elites want to keep crying wolf ......... well we will give them something to howl about.

I didnt want to go to that extreme but since they keep wanting "change" to SS then by golly lets give it to em.

Raise the payroll tax to 14% too as a double bitch slap on these lying bastards.They can enjoy their change.

Lets cut benefits (say 20%) for the top 10% income of seniors SS benefits.Make cuts for those with fat bank accounts and assets.

Then give them their retirment age and benefit changes they want. REDUCE the returement age to 60. They can have their benefit cuts too!!!!

Cavuto and Greenspan wins!!!!

Ill give in and pretend the program needs chnges.

flow goes negative, after 2015. Reducing the retirement age before then just increases potential theft from FICA.

Progressive taxation of Social Security benefits could start before then. In a way, delayed changes in the retirement age and highly progressive taxation of Social Security benefits starting soon would constitute justice. Drastic reductions in Social Security entitlements would accrue to precisely the generations of the wealthy who supported Reagan and the Bush dynasty so enthusiastically.

... basicaly dont force workers- whose legs and back wear out just like an earlier born pre 1950 persons does- to have to work past 65 then once we stop that horrible adjustment (and the increase to 67 for those born after midnight January 1960), proceed to reduce the retirement age further once we safely get back to 65.

I agree with that totally.


Infact it makes since to keep the retirement age at 65 while the boomers are of age to retire but once that relative financial strain (though NOWHERE near are stressful to the program as the propagandists have drilled into our heads)passes , then we must make some significant retirement age reductions. At a minninum we should (aside from axing the terrible incrimental retirement age increases to 67 back down to 65) allow people to take early retirement (withreduced benefits)as soon as 1960 with no further cuts in benefits beyond the 15% cut to retire at 62 instead of 65 (or 63/66 for those born from 1950-1959 and 64/67 for post 1960 births , which again are disgusting policys ,I cant riterate enough).

The wealthy seniors need some savage cuts however. Greenspan, Cavuto , and countless other propagandists finally convinced me of that (yea yea I know ,they are full of crap saying the program is going broke and yea yea they wanted cuts on the checks that go to the poor , but they did spark an idea we should appreciate). Not to "save the program" (Cavuto made it sound like SS has ruined our whole fiscal budget and country , honestly it was as much of a TOTAL lie as you could imagine for a self funded program that touches nothing...not negativly anyway)but frankly its a good idea to enable retirment age lowering.

I vote for Bill Clinton. He seems to have been the only person lately who is able to fix the system!

CEO Bill Novelli, on the other hand, is "open to new ideas" about privatizing Medicare. He must go.

Democrats and Republicans alike speak so often about the program "going broke" once the baby boomers retire that their either honestly believe it or are bold faced lyers.

I even hear regulars on Bill Moyars show say how "scary" it is that "social security is going bankrupt" and right infront of Moyars and Kevin Phillips,2 who should know better but they sit silent listening.


We will be faced with a very conservative house and senate (whether Democrats take it or not)plus endless propaganda from those who are lyers (the media) then low caliber,but otherwise decent, people representing our party in office who wont have a clue except to believe the elite view expoused as fact.

Once this election is over, all the young punks (that wear a "Bush sucks" shit) who are going to take over the Democratic party will surely take off the shirts. We better give them a "Social Security is the most sound program in our country" (or something like that)shirt to ear in its place otherwise they will most likly believe the propaganda and will urge action to undermine SS through letters , phone calls , on camera comments , etc. and the media will gladly magnify their mislead pleas.

We desperatly need to start outing the truth and I commend the author for spotting one of ,if not THE most important issues we face.

"The truth shall set you free (of the right wing)" to quote somebody we all are familar with.

individual accounts for ANY Social Security 'reform'? Do you think younger workers understand why greedy stockbrokers and extreme Republican ideologues are so intent on taking away guaranteed benefits from younger workers?

IMO this is largely a matter of PURE IDEOLOGY that rarely gets any discussion. Republican true believers HATE "defined benefit" pension and social insurance plans like Social Security and many long-time union retirement plans for workers. They believe such plans are tantamount to "socialism" because managers of centralized defined benefit pensions or social insurance have tremendous power to affect the finances of individual corporations.

The ideologues worry about the kinds of political pressure on corporations that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa. Remember "divestiture", the successful social organizing that led to sharp declines in stock and bond prices for any corporations that continued to do business in apartheid South Africa? Evidently, "divestiture" really shook up hard-core ideologues such as Alan Greenspan. He must fear, "What if similar social organizing went after exploiters of child labor and prison labor, polluters, or companies that don't pay 'living wages'"? Peter Drucker wrote about "pension fund socialism" during the 1970s, and Jesse Jackson's "Wall Street Project" has won some victories against corporate race and sex discrimination using this tactic. Greenspan are deeply afraid that corporate decisionmaking might be "corrupted" by social and environmental concerns and not focus soleley on short-term profits for stock and bond owners.

Greenspan and his ilk will tolerate pre-funding of Social Security ONLY if power over corporations is dispersed in millions of individually-managed "defined contribution" accounts. Pre-funding defined benefits is a dealbreaker for them, because it would require central management and would concentrate power to limit corporate misbehavior. When Dubya appointed a commission to study Social Security reform, its mission statement RULED OUT pre-funding unless individual "defined contribution" accounts, not collective defined benefits, would be involved. The main recommendations had been made (by Greenspan?) before the panel even was picked!

Along with the ideologues, Wall Street brokers also insist on individual accounts, so they could look forward to taking 20 percent of FICA in "management fees". Fees for central management of prefunded defined benefits would only have to cover the salaries of managers and staff, and would be insignificant for funds of hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars.

The insistence of this coalition of brokers and ideologues on "defined contribution" privatization explains why Republicans want to worry about pre-funding retirement benefits for workers who'll start retiring in 40 years BEFORE they worry about funding retirement for workers who'll retire just 10 years from now. Nobody approaching retirement in 10 or 20 years willingly would trade in guaranteed defined Social Security benefites for IRA-like, very "iffy", individual accounts. But younger workers might fall for the scheme.

What do you think? Do you agree with my analysis?

Look at Chile.A 1973 U.S. backed coup lead to the outlawing of trade union activitys. (looking at total numbers in this country , none government job unions are pretty much gone as well)

Before then 75% of Chileans were covered by Social Security ans 2/3s of the cost was covered by employers. pre 1973.

In 1981 , individual accounts became a mandatory replacment for Social Security. The private pension companys charged high managment fees that ate up 1/5th of all contributions.The average return under 90 day CDs (compare that to our current SS system here which gets its return through US Treasury bonds) would have been 7.2% from 1981 to 1998. Under the individual account the return was 5.1% after fees between 1981 and 1998.BUT here is the kicker , that was the "in it for the long run" average you hear constantly by stock peddlers. Data from 1994-1008 actualy showed that a 6.6% LOSS was the rolling average.With money in CDs , there would have been a 42% profit during that period.The private pension companys made 20% profits every year.

Investment and insurance companys are the strongest suporters of the privatization campaign.Wonder why?


The problem is that the media drives all the issues and what kind of political discource we have in this nation. If "unions are a thing of the past" then so be it, we accept their world (the media and elites dont just have "views" they make all the difference in the world). If Social Security is going bankrupt and bankrupting our nation then just TRY and find any one who challenges this "fact". Honestly , try and find somebody who speaks the truth.Tally up all the times you hear the big lie then tally up how many times on TV you hear the truth. Then keep score.

Until we can change the culture (ie promote people seeing THE TRUTH over total elite driven perception and outright lies) then we will loose every battle no matter which party "wins" the latest election.


EDITING just to point out an example of what I mean. Of how stupid people are in following media driven perception. Check out a thread (bumped from like 3 months ago just today by some poster) in the Politics section of DU refering to Greenwood retiring. Here is a perfect example. Everybody there is moaning about this Rockefeller Republican retiring claiming these types are a "moderating force". Yet the same people will moan about Ashcroft.Indeed they should. But the Rockefeller Republicans "honorable good people" were the Ashcrofts before Ashcroft. Brutal SOBs who ruined lives. But they are the "good people" and "esteemed gentlemen" you know.