SOCIAL SECURITY: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK

C.I., how much did you pay into the system over your working history? Did you ever add it up?

Freeduck, what I think should happen is not the purpose of this thread. I think what should happen is what will do the least harm and accomplish the most good. I don't know how to do that. I do know that insulting people, here or elsewhere, or trying to make this a partisan issue won't help any of us figure out how to do that.

I wanted us all to reason together. Some here just seem to wish to quarrel and be judgmental. I hope we get through that phase very quickly.

Repeated from above, "You, see, I actually did keep a record of our social security contributions since our marriage in 1963, and our total through last year (since my wife still works three days a week) was $123,075 (for the both of us).

Since you are now getting down to the political nitty gritty of this issue, I think it would be beneficial to read the following article by "liberal" Princeton economist, Paul Krugman.


Deficits and Deceit
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Four years ago, Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, asserting that the federal government was in imminent danger of paying off too much debt.

On Wednesday the Fed chairman warned Congress of the opposite fiscal danger: he asserted that there would be large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, leading to an unsustainable rise in federal debt. But he counseled against reversing the tax cuts, calling instead for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Does anyone still take Mr. Greenspan's pose as a nonpartisan font of wisdom seriously?

When Mr. Greenspan made his contorted argument for tax cuts back in 2001, his reputation made it hard for many observers to admit the obvious: he was mainly looking for some way to do the Bush administration a political favor. But there's no reason to be taken in by his equally weak, contorted argument against reversing those cuts today.

To put Mr. Greenspan's game of fiscal three-card monte in perspective, remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."

Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.

So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.

And that's the story of the last four years. In 2001, President Bush and Mr. Greenspan justified tax cuts with sunny predictions that the budget would remain comfortably in surplus. But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.

In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending.

To keep that straitjacket on, however, those who sold tax cuts with the assurance that they were easily affordable must convince the public that the cuts can't be reversed now that those assurances have proved false. And Mr. Greenspan has once again tried to come to the president's aid, insisting this week that we should deal with deficits "primarily, if not wholly," by slashing Social Security and Medicare because tax increases would "pose significant risks to economic growth."

Really? America prospered for half a century under a level of federal taxes higher than the one we face today. According to the administration's own estimates, Mr. Bush's second term will see the lowest tax take as a percentage of G.D.P. since the Truman administration. And don't forget that President Clinton's 1993 tax increase ushered in an economic boom. Why, exactly, are tax increases out of the question?

O.K., enough about Mr. Greenspan. The real news is the growing evidence that the political theory behind the Bush tax cuts was as wrong as the economic theory.

According to starve-the-beast doctrine, right-wing politicians can use the big deficits generated by tax cuts as an excuse to slash social insurance programs. Mr. Bush's advisers thought that it would prove especially easy to sell benefit cuts in the context of Social Security privatization because the president could pretend that a plan that sharply cut benefits would actually be good for workers.

But the theory isn't working. As soon as voters heard that privatization would involve benefit cuts, support for Social Security "reform" plunged. Another sign of the theory's falsity: across the nation, Republican governors, finding that voters really want adequate public services, are talking about tax increases.

The best bet now is that Mr. Bush will manage to make the poor suffer, but fail to make a dent in the great middle-class entitlement programs.

And the consequence of the failure of the starve-the-beast theory is a looming fiscal crisis - Mr. Greenspan isn't wrong about that. The middle class won't give up programs that are essential to its financial security; the right won't give up tax cuts that it sold on false pretenses. The only question now is when foreign investors, who have financed our deficits so far, will decide to pull the plug.

Well, you said earlier that you weren't necessarily interested in saving social security. So what is the problem we are trying to solve. Are we trying to solve the problem of ss solvency, in which case we would be looking for ways to keep it solvent, or are we trying to solve the problem of citizenA giving some of their money to citizenB through taxes, in which case there might be other solutions.

I've followed the thread from the beginning and I think that focusing on what exactly it is we're trying to come up with solutions for would be very helpful.

As for insulting people or making this a partisan issue, if you're directing that at me I'd like to know just what exactly you mean by it as I'm pretty sure I haven't done either.

I saw that piece, J.L., and decided to look for a more objective opposition to tax cuts and/or Greenspan's take. Actually I've been looking for an opposition piece that is presented at least as objectively as Williams' piece with a minimal of finger pointing and partisanship. They're hard to find. It is no secret that Krugman and Greenspan have been at serious odds for some time now. Could we even say hold each other in contempt?

I do not believe politics automatically has to be contentious.

Krugman has his own credentials, however, and he might as well be tossed into the mix.

And welcome to the thread J.L. You'll no doubt add some new perspectives.

Starve the beast sounds about right to me! It has nothing to do with reducing the deficit or saving social security.

If anyone is still actually reading posts, then please read JLN's post above. My post is due to an inability to resist responding to foxfyre's post a few pages back. It reminds me why I seldom post on "political" threads--there are two sides and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Foxfyre posted (leaving out the first sentence),
Yes, soccial security does help support people who have been imprisoned for robbery, prostitution, drugs and many other "immoral" acts.
Social security also helps the children of these immoral people. Children who, from the time they are a couple of years old, are prostituted by their parents. Little girls who are clothed in dresses because it makes it easier for men to rape them while mom watches and makes sure the man doesn't leave before paying for the opportunity to rape the child. This same child, when she is older, has to work at a place like McDonalds in order to clothe herself and her younger siblings. She doesn't do well in school because she is tired from working until 11 or 12 at night plus, very possibly, turning tricks. Her father is in prison and mom is a drug addict. Do you have ANY idea how common this is??? I guess this all-too-typical girl isn't raised with a strong moral sense; she only knows what it takes to survive. To me, that is pretty impressive. "Hate the sin, love the sinner???" Oh, god, how I hate that statement, applied to gays and the so-called sinners of the world and used with such self-righteous effect by so many "good" Christians.

Most of us have had to work very hard to reach a level of financial comfort. Many of us have experienced some sort of disaster that takes away much or all of what we worked to hard to attain. Most of us, at least, have had the opportunities to acheive some degree of success. Then there are those whose lives have been one, continuous disaster. Why not provide the sinner with just a small percentage of the opportunities most of us have had? They don't need much more than a decent education and the time to study. Social security won't solve all their incredibly complex problems, but it will give a chance to those who still have the sanity and the will to use the money to their advantage.

Quote, "Hate the sin, love the sinner???" is exactly the same argument my sister made when I asked her why she hates homosexuals, and wants laws establishing discrimination against them.

And thanks for posting your social security contributions C.I. My husband and I both started working at 14 and were holding serious paying jobs as well as going to school at 15. Except for taking a few months off when each of my two kids were born, and up to a few weeks each time hubby got transferred, I've pretty well worked full time and then some since age 15. My husband has been unemployed for a total of 2 weeks during the past 50 years. I haven't kept strict track, but estimate our overall contributions are probably some more than you and your wife, but I don't consider $123,000 to be insignificant. Do you?

If somebody is receiving $1,000/month in social security (that's $231/week - could you live on that?), working Americans have to be earning $96,774 for them and their employers to cover that one person's entitlement. As the American workforce shrinks relative to the number of retirees once the boomers start retiring in large numbers in just a few more years, it isn't hard to see how there will be a crisis.

But what if young workers now were able to invest some of their social security contributions now in return for a reduced entitlement later on.? Given the track record of the market over the last 60 years, they would like have a much larger return on their money and might be provided say $500 or $800 entitlement requiring much less from working Americans to cover it.

What I've been seeing is a majority of older Americans aren't trusting this--they want their social security checks intact and unthreatened.

A majority of young Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of this.

Why wouldn't a two-tier system be feasible now? Leave the old folks alone, but let the younger Americans who wish to do so opt for self-directed accounts?

The one thing that nobody seems to want to answer is why shouldn't Americans be able to take risks with the money they have worked for and earned?

Diane, the point re my post was to illustrate the difference between mandatory charity and voluntary charity. In my world, free people utilize voluntary charity to help the less fortunate. While motives may be exemplary in forced charity, a people with a government who forces its people to be charitable is not a free people. A government who can force you to be charitable is a government that can force you to do anything.

Extremely Untrue. I challenge you to provide a stat or link that shows this, especially 'overwhelmingly.'



? They can! Just not the money that we take in taxes to pay for gov't services. Which is where the problem really lies, isn't it?

Cycloptichorn

I thought that was obvious McG. You are a "selfish prick." But don't claim that as a "selfish prick" you are MORE MORAL than the rest of us.

This certainly is the divide. I think we as a society have a responsibility. You think you have no responsbility to others. Who is the more adult, the more christian in this argument? The difference is I don't want to screw you over for being a "selfish prick" and deny you benefits if you need them but you are more than happy to say I should pay your share too since I am a "caring individual."

Cyclop, According to some news reports recently, it shows that those in the age group between 18 and 29 do believe in private investment accounts for social security. My response to that are as follows: 1) they probably have no experience in investing in the stock market, and have no idea how badly many have done, 2) most probably never did the math, 3) most probably don't understand there's no guarantee of return on private investments, and 4) they will end up with reduced social security benefits.

That's funny. George W. Bush offered the same argument regarding his whopping tax breaks to the rich; everybody should get a tax break, and they should be able to keep more of their money for they are smart enough to know what to do with it (vs. the U.S. Federal Government).

And NOW, George W. Bush is offering the argument that we can trust the U.S. Federal Government to inform us regarding a massive overhaul of SS, thereby already admitting that personal accounts will do nothing for the solvency of SS and put us trillions of dollars more in debt. Perhaps it was conveniently forgotten that our "hard earned money," which we already receive via a "paycheck," is money in which we have every right and freedom to invest with.

Perhaps the web ads GOPNext ran against the AARP, calling them anti-patriotic and for gay marriage, might be contributing to the ever increasing doubts Americans have regarding Bush's attempt to destroy SS.

Does anybody see the duplicitous nature of W's little universe here? Or am I the only one?

How's your satellite reception in your survivalist hole in the ground, McGentrix?

Last I checked, charities and church donations generally don't pay for things like highway repairs, city municipalities, and just about everything else in between which is taxpayer funded to help maintain an effective U.S. infrastructure.

In that you are a selfish prick there can be no question. At least you're honest...

Here's a link to a recent Washington Post/ABC poll Cyclop. Enjoy.

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2005/jan/socialsecurity/wp_poll.html

I greatly admire and appreciate the compassion shown in Diane's picture of the circumstances of the so-called unworthy poor. It grinds me when I hear of the self-righteous condemnations by the well-off (no matter how courageous and hard-working they have lived in order to become "well-off) of those whom they feel do not deserve their assistance. To me, social security is not just MY contributions which I will someday collect. It is a communal system in which we all provide for the security of all of our neighbors. If the worthy among us do not want addicts, alcoholics, prostitutes, and other "unworthies" to benefit from this system, work to rid ourselves of the social causes of addiction, alcoholism, prostitution, and the like--if that does not require too much altruism and social responsibility on the part of the worthy.

CI, you are correct on all counts. The young generation is so poorly informed now with the advent of paid/fake journalism that they are being groomed for the next generation of American fascists, and they will grasp to an ideology taught to them by a massive disinformation media, as they grow up in an alternative reality where those in power will have a firm control over these mindless minions.

Okay, I'll catch you guys later when the flamers are done and we can get back to discussing what should happen with social security and/or how a repair, if needed, can be approached.

But you know, there are other threads to bash the president and the GOP and all the evil people who believe in personal accountablity and believe free people do need to be slaves to an inefficient, ineffective system that is no longer working as it was intended. I wanted this to be a thread where reasonable people could reason together.

Quote, "I wanted this to be a thread where reasonable people could reason together." It's interesting to note that it seems to many of us only you provide "reasonable" opinions. Your failure to respond to questions about your own statements seems to be "your" failure in this regard.