Excellent easy to understand video explanation of the Social Security "crisis".

This was made during the Bush years, so the numbers are a bit off (cap now $106.8K), but it's a simple visual explanation of how Social Security works, the bait-&-switch of the Reagan years, & the fraudulence of the "Social Security is going bankrupt!" meme.

That's all in the first 6 minutes. The last 6 minutes covers the Bush "private account" fraud & a conclusion. Very good explanation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tts2uTWt6e8

If it is a lack of money in the pot, why not just put more money in.
There is plenty being used to kill people after all.

So...wtf?

Workers sent 2 trillion dollars to washington in social security taxes that was never paid out as benefits, but was instead borrowed, mostly by the top 1% (people like pete peterson, who's funding the assault on social security) in the form of bush tax cuts.

the fucks don't want to pay it back, they want people to pay even more in social security taxes, receive less in benefits, & retire later.

which means, for the bottom half of the income distribution, who are *not* living much longer than they used to, dying before collecting.

but it appears that the Obama Administration is going to chose another path, a path to reform social security.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it seems to mean the working & middle classes are about to get screwed again.

Way back in the late 80's or early 90's I watched an hour long documentary-type tv program on SS. 'Frontline'(?) or something akin to it; and I'm curious about the accuracy (or lack thereof) of what they had to say...

The basic jist of it was this question:

Would you, or should you continue to receive SS payouts if you knew that you've exhausted the amount that you've personally contributed through-out your entire working life? They then asked this question of people with moderately high to very high post-retirement income levels...people whose investment and/or pension incomes kept their standard of living high regardless of whether they continued to accept SS payouts or not. Everyone profiled said No, they would not give up their SS payouts even if they've exhausted what they've paid in. If I remember correctly, the point of the program was merely implied, but basically can be summed up this way with another question: Should SS benefit payouts be means-tested after people have exhausted the amount they contributed?

MY question for you or anyone in the know is this: Is the basic premise, that SS payouts beyond a certain amount of years exhaust the benefits a person pays in... even true? The program spent pretty close to the first 3/4 of it's time "proving" this. Ironically, I don't remember HOW they proved it other then only one of their points... we live longer and therefore collect longer then was thought possible when SS was originally implemented.

This tv program clearly had an impact on me at the time (or I wouldn't be remembering it now all these years later). It played into both class-ist and generational fears and resentment many of us (then young) genX'rs were having at the time. Please keep in mind that the prevailing propaganda was that SS would not be there for us when we retired. And the program really capitalized on that supposed "fact" among others. Remember, also that this program aired only shortly after the demise of the fairness doctrine but pre-internet ... I was young and naive enough to assume what they were saying was true.

Now I'd just like to know if there is even a grain of truth to it. And if so, does anyone think means testing would be appropriate IF folks truly do exhaust what they've paid in?

BTW- I watched the video. Good info and thanks!


On edit: couple of grammatical booboos

some people "exhaust what they pay in" (adjusted for inflation & interest over their lifetimes) - some don't.

but SS isn't an individual retirement account, it's a universal insurance program, so that propaganda point is a red herring. if you have a major accident, you "exhaust what you paid in" to your car insurance too -- but the insurance companies as a whole stay solvent, & so has social security.

the profit/loss for any single or representative individual is beside the point: the point is the fiduciary soundness & social benefit of the program as a whole.

-and unlike the cap on payroll taxes, this tax is much more fairly assessed IMO. I don't know if I'd go as far as saying that a tax is a means test though. But as far as I can tell, this is my only area of disagreement with you and I'm not so sure it matters anyway...After all, your analogy of SS being similar to any other type of insurance makes alot of sense. It's such a simple truth but I guess I had never thought of it that way before. :-)

Thanks Hannahbell!

bookmarking for later.