2
   

SOCIAL SECURITY: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 06:23 pm
Well I'm going to ignore those who can't resist making this a partisan issue, Cyclop, and hope the others will too.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 07:25 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/politics/03poll.html?hp&ex=1109912400&en=1b7c8514d044e85b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

March 3, 2005
New Poll Finds Bush Priorities Are Out of Step With Americans
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll underscores just how little headway Mr. Bush has made in his effort to build popular support as his proposal for overhauling Social Security struggles to gain footing in Congress. At the same time, there has been an increase in respondents who say that efforts to restore order in Iraq are going well, even as an overwhelming number of Americans say Mr. Bush has no clear plan for getting out of Iraq.

On Social Security, 51 percent said permitting individuals to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's plan, was a bad idea, even as a majority said they agreed with Mr. Bush that the program would become insolvent near the middle of the century if nothing was done. The number who thought private accounts were a bad idea jumped to 69 percent if respondents were told that the private accounts would result in a reduction in guaranteed benefits. And 45 percent said Mr. Bush's private account plan would actually weaken the economic underpinnings of the nation's retirement system.

In a sign of the political obstacles confronting the White House, a majority of those surveyed said they would support raising the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll tax above its current ceiling of $90,000, an idea floated by Mr. Bush but shot down by Republican Congressional leaders. Yet there is strong resistance to other options available to Mr. Bush and lawmakers to repair the system, in particular to raising the retirement age or making participation voluntary.

Notwithstanding Mr. Bush's argument that citizens should be given more control over their retirement savings, almost four out of five respondents said it was the government's responsibility to assure a decent standard of living for the elderly.

The poll was the first conducted by The Times and CBS News since the president's inauguration. It comes after six hectic weeks for the administration, in which Mr. Bush has witnessed successful elections in Iraq - which he hailed as validation of his decision to remove Saddam Hussein - but also the toughest period he has encountered on Capitol Hill, as he has struggled to win support for the signature proposal of his second term.

In an apparent reflection of the success of the Iraq elections, 53 percent of those surveyed said that efforts to bring order to Iraq were going very or somewhat well, up from 41 percent a month ago. That is the highest rating on that score since the capture of Mr. Hussein.

Still, 42 percent now say that Mr. Bush would have been better off trying to counter the threat of North Korea before invading Iraq, compared with 45 percent who think Mr. Bush was correct to focus first on Iraq.

More broadly, the poll suggests that Mr. Bush is in a problematic position as he enters a second term intent on pushing an extraordinarily assertive agenda through Congress.

Four months after Mr. Bush won a solid re-election over Senator John Kerry, 63 percent of respondents say the president has different priorities on domestic issues than most Americans. Asked to choose among five domestic issues facing the country, respondents rated Social Security third, behind jobs and health care. And nearly 50 percent said Democrats were more likely to make the right decisions about Social Security, compared with 31 percent who said the same thing about Republicans.

"There are so many other things that seem to me to be more critical and immediate: I think the national debt is absolutely an immediate thing to address," said Irv Packer, 66, a Missouri Republican. He added, "Another one that I'd really like to see people working on is the environment."

Lisa Delaune, 37, a student from Houston and a member of the Green Party, said in a follow-up interview, "My opinion is that the president favors big business over the health and well-being and overall stability of the entire American population."

And Mr. Bush does not appear to be much more in step with the nation on what the White House has long viewed as his strong suit: 58 percent of respondents said the White House did not share the foreign affairs priorities of most Americans.

For all that, Mr. Bush's approval rating remains unchanged, at 49 percent, from a month ago, suggesting that the disagreement with Mr. Bush's ideas has yet to take a toll on America's view of him.

The poll was conducted by telephone with 1,111 adults from Thursday through Monday. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

If Americans are ambivalent about the need for Washington to grapple with Social Security, the poll found abundant concern with the budget deficit, with much of the blame attributed to Mr. Bush. Sixty percent of respondents - including 48 percent of self-described conservatives - said they disapproved of how Mr. Bush was managing the deficit. And 90 percent of respondents described the deficit as a very or somewhat serious problem.

The focus on Social Security has, if anything, aggravated concern about the deficit. About 30 percent said that the cost of Mr. Bush's proposal to create private accounts would increase the deficit. And on another question, about 40 percent said that Mr. Bush's budget proposal, made last month, would also result in increasing the deficit, notwithstanding the deep cuts Mr. Bush proposed to try to pull back the deficit.

The poll underlines the difficulty of the task Mr. Bush faces in trying to overhaul Social Security, given that the heart of the White House strategy has been to sell the public on the need for repairing the system, in the calculation that would corral Congress behind Mr. Bush. So far, at least, the evidence suggests that campaign has not succeeded.

Indeed, the percentage of respondents who think it is a good idea to permit people to invest in private accounts is as low as it has been since the question was first asked in May 2000.

"I don't think he's listening to the people concerning Social Security," said Beverly Workman, a West Virginia Democrat who said she voted for Mr. Bush. "I think the public wants him to leave it alone."

Jim Choi, 34, an unemployed biotechnology worker from California, said: "The way the system is set up, it's not going to go bankrupt. People will get by; we all adapt."

Still, Mr. Bush's argument that the system is approaching bankruptcy - a contention disputed by Democrats and independent analysts - seems to be taking hold. Two-thirds of respondents say the system will be bankrupt by 2042 if nothing is done to repair it. Sixty-one percent said the program has worked well until now, but the next generation will need a different kind of program to assure that they receive benefits.

And 55 percent said the problems with Social Security were serious enough that they should be fixed now, compared to 35 percent who said they did not need to be addressed for another 10 or 15 years.

The elections in Iraq have contributed to some improvement in the perception of Mr. Bush's policy there, though it remains far from popular. In this poll, 50 percent of those surveyed said they disapproved of his Iraq policy, down from 55 percent a month ago, while 45 percent approved, up from 40 percent.

On North Korea, 81 percent said that that nation does indeed now have nuclear weapons, and 7 in 10 said it poses a serious threat to the United States. Still, a majority of Americans said they opposed taking pre-emptive action against North Korea if diplomatic efforts failed - a shift from before the war in Iraq, when a majority said they would support military action if diplomatic efforts failed.


Fred Backus contributed reporting for this article.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 07:29 am
Revel, I will respectfully ask that you too keep this in a non partisan vein. I would like this thread to be a discussion about what needs to happen with social security and not become another partisan bush-bashing thread. Thank you.

Steppenwolf, I am not avoiding responding to your previous long post but there's a lot of stuff there and I am still thinking about it as I have time. I'll be getting back to you on that. Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 07:33 am
You started this thread explaining the plan; the article mentions the plan and how Americans feel about it, I thought it applied. If it didn't, sorry.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 07:38 am
Au contrare. There is no plan. It is quite obvious from the opening article in the thread that there is no plan. Williams specifically said he would not comment on the plan until there was a plan to comment on. The thesis set out the problems with the system as it is. I want us to educate ourselves on the situation as it is and how we want this national debate to unfold. If you don't see a problem with the system as it is, that would be important. If you do, that is also important. Do any of us have a clue how to fix it? Probably not. But if we reason together, we just might come closer to the best way to think about it.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 07:49 am
At the outset in your first post this was posted around the second paragraph:

Quote:
President Bush's call to allow Americans to take a portion of the money they pay as Social Security taxes to set up private retirement accounts has to be a good idea. Why? The more of what a person earns that's in his pocket and under his control, the better off he will be.


So I pasted this from the article (NYT):

Quote:
On Social Security, 51 percent said permitting individuals to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's plan, was a bad idea,


To me the two seemed related. Again, if I was out of line, sorry.

I agree with those Americans who think investing part of the SS taxes in private accounts is a bad idea. I disagreed when Clinton first hinted at the idea too. The stock market is simply to iffy. I don't pretend to know a solution to the problem that is not going to happen for quite a while.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 07:55 am
That's fair enough. And no apology needed. I appreciate your respecting the purpose of the thread. Stay with us here though as we need some status quo folks to balance the debate against those who would like to privatize everything. Being of retirement age myself, though I am not retired, the idea of a complete overhaul of the system right now is personally worrisome to me. At the same time I look at my kids and granddaughter and know that they likely won't have the same benefits or will pay huge additional sums in taxes unless there is a new approach to the system.

So, I do think it is a debate that we need to have. I like to approach these things with no preconceived notion about what the end product will look like.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 12:41 pm
A nice LA times piece on what we can look forward to in the next few months of this debate:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-social3mar03,0,3463443.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Quote:
Bush Team Is Going on the Offensive
A 60-day, 60-stop tour aims to sway the public on his proposal to overhaul Social Security. Polls show a drop in support for the plan.


By Warren Vieth and Richard Simon, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON ?- The Bush administration announced Wednesday a 60-day, 60-stop barnstorming tour to promote the president's plan for overhauling Social Security, as Republican lawmakers and their allies bickered over how to win Democratic and public support for the president's initiative without gutting it.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the committee that would write a Social Security bill, suggested Wednesday that it might be better to take private accounts ?- the centerpiece of Bush's plan ?- off the table for the time being to open the door to talks with Democrats about a possible compromise on shoring up the finances of the retirement system.







Saying that private accounts were not the cure-all for solving the long-term financial problems facing Social Security, Grassley said: "Maybe we ought to focus on solvency and bring people to the table just over what do you do for the solvency."

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow appeared to be open to alternatives to Bush's proposal for private accounts. Asked if the administration would consider a plan that did not include the accounts, he told reporters: "Everything is on the table."

The comments came as Republicans sought a way to build momentum for Bush's plan, which has failed to win an endorsement from any prominent Democratic lawmaker and is losing support in some public opinion surveys, despite weeks of public campaigning by the president.

Many Republican lawmakers who used last week's recess to talk about Social Security with constituents reported hearing opposition or only tepid support for Bush's plan.

In a possible boost for the president, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress on Wednesday to move quickly to shore up Social Security's likely long-term financing gap. That gap is expected because of the coming wave of baby boom retirees and is estimated to reach $3.7 trillion over 75 years.

"I fear that we may have already committed more physical resources to the baby boom generation in its retirement years than our economy has the capacity to deliver," Greenspan told the House Budget Committee. "If existing promises need to be changed, those changes should be made sooner rather than later."

Bush has also sought to build a sense of urgency around the need to restructure Social Security. Under his proposal, workers would be allowed to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into private stock and bond accounts, which the president says would allow them to earn more in retirement than the current system can offer.

Bush says the accounts on their own would not address the future funding shortfall facing Social Security, but that they should be part of a broader discussion of fixes that might include benefit cuts.

Democrats and other critics say private accounts would force the government to borrow more than $1 trillion to replace the diverted tax money, while doing nothing to improve the system's future shortfall. A number of Republican lawmakers fear that embracing Bush's plan would spark a voter backlash, especially among senior citizens.

According to a survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, the percentage of Americans who say they favor private accounts has tumbled to 46% from 54% in December and from 58% in September.

Opposition was higher among those who had heard a lot about Bush's plan than among those who were less familiar with it. The survey of 1,502 adults was conducted Feb. 16-21, and the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll released late Wednesday, 51% of respondents said permitting workers to invest Social Security taxes in private accounts was a bad idea, up 1 percentage point from January. About 43% called it a good idea, down 2 percentage points. The poll of 1,111 adults was conducted from Thursday through Monday, and the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

They were the latest of four polls that have shown a decline in support for Bush's plan.

In an attempt to sway opinion, Bush will travel at least one day a week to campaign for his plan until May 1, Snow said Wednesday. The Treasury secretary said he would hit the road for at least two days a week. Other administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, would participate in the tour, officials said.

"I'm going to travel this country a lot talking about the issue of Social Security," Bush said during an appearance in Arnold, Md. "Every week, I'm going to be out talking about the problem, assuring seniors that nothing will change, and reminding young Americans that they need to write the Congress, the senators and the House of Representatives and demand action."

As Republican officials and their allies sought ways to move the debate forward and bring aboard Democrats, the lack of progress also revived tensions among different factions in the party.

Although Grassley suggested a temporary halt in promoting private accounts, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) rejected any move to step back from private accounts. "Why would we do that?" DeLay asked. "What we ought to stop doing is negotiating with ourselves."

"I think it's a terrible idea," said Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), the co-author of a leading restructuring bill that calls for private accounts. "If you exclude that, you're not going to be able to implement a system that is sustainable in the long run."

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) said he might consider taking private accounts off the table to spur bipartisan negotiations, but only if Democrats offered a solution "instead of saying 'no, no, no' to everything that is out there."

The back-and-forth in Congress reflected a broader debate among Republicans over the White House strategy for promoting its plan. One conservative advocacy group issued a pointed critique of the president's sales pitch.

"One hates to admit it, but so far the Bush administration has made a hash of its campaign," wrote Larry Hunter, chief economist of the Free Enterprise Fund, in a memo dated Tuesday.

Though Grassley has raised the prospect of recasting Bush's plan so that workers divert less tax money into personal accounts, Hunter argued that Bush cannot succeed unless he makes the accounts larger.

The Social Security road show was announced by Snow, who said the 60-day, 60-stop blitz represented a significant expansion of the administration's campaign to convince the public that the system was unsustainable and that private accounts should be part of the solution.

"The scope and the scale of this goes beyond anything we've done before," Snow told reporters. "This is going to give real momentum, real priority, real scale to our effortsÂ…. It's bound to produce very positive results."

Snow said he was launching the offensive with appearances today in Arkansas and Friday in Louisiana. Bush will hold talk-show-style events Friday in New Jersey and Indiana.

Democratic opponents are planning a counter-offensive.

Senate Democratic leaders said they would travel Friday and Saturday to four states, including Arizona and Pennsylvania, to pressure Republican senators who were supporting Bush's Social Security plan to back down.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, which would write any Social Security legislation, said Bush's sales pitch was backfiring.

"If the president is going around the country saying that if you are older than 55, there will be no benefit cuts, what they are hearing back home is that if you are 55 or younger, you are guaranteed benefit cuts," he said.


Dissent in the ranks? We'll see.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 12:52 pm
(I tried to post this yesterday, but a2k wouldn't let me. it might not be relevant now, but here it goes)

Dumbed down version of why private accounts would lead to borrowing money:

Currently contributions made by younger taxpayers are being spent paying the benefits of today's old.

You're looking to switch to a system in which the contributions of younger taxpayers are invested, and benefits paid from invested accounts to recipients. (the same people having grown old)

So, what's the determining difference between the systems? In the latter a heap of money is sitting in a bank or in portfolios accruing interest. In switching from the former system to the latter that heap will have to come from somewhere. (essentially setting up accounts for people who have paid into the old system rather than personal accounts, but who will not receive benefits taken from the contributions of the young of today who's money will instead be invested in private accounts)

Bush seems to favour borrowing (postponing), the alternatives being raising taxes and cutting benefits.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 01:22 pm
Quote:
As far as the Factcheck's definition of 'bankruptcy', how long would any of us be able to pay only 3/4ths of our bills before we had to declare bankruptcy?


Gee, the Federal govt seems to think they can do it forever on the side of the general fund but it would bankrupt SS to do it.
(2004 in billions)
TOTALS
Present Federal govt revenues 1,880
Present Federal govt outlays 2,208
% of bills that are ACTUALLY being paid and not borrowed for. 78%

Present General fund revenues 1,345
Present Generral fund outlays 1,912
% of bills ACTUALLY being paid by General fund 70%

I find it a disingenuous argument to claim SS can't survive on only 75% of revenues in 30 years but the Federal govt is surviving TODAY on only 70% of revenues.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 01:38 pm
If you want to discuss saving SS. I started a thread here several days ago.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=46431&highlight=
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 02:51 pm
I didn't wish to highjack your thread with a different approach parados. I am less interested in 'saving social security' than in devising a workable proposal for the maximum benefit of the people. The piece opening this thread summarized the built in problems. If we don't address those problems, nothing we do will have any affect on 'saving' the system.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 02:53 pm
Okay, my afternoon appointment looms. Back later.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 03:13 pm
the polls show;
(1) the public thinks the Repubs are more trusted than the dems on Defense.
(2) the public thinks Dems are more trusted than the the repubs on Social Security.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 04:07 pm
But Dys, while that will no doubt be pertinent when it comes to selling a new proposal to the people, I would like for it to be irrelevant for this discussion. Let's go with ideas and leave political parties and/or personalities out of it other than that Congress will ultimately will be the means by which any new system/policy/process/procedure is authorized and implemented.

Here's an analysis byTim Penny, one of my favorite Democrats and one I have sorely missed since he resigned from Congress.

I would recommend that everybody on this thread bookmark/favorite the website for the CATO Institute, a libertarian research and think tank that is as bipartisan as any we are going to find. There is a wealth of information there and they are adding to it almost daily including a daily debunker re social security.

Tim Penny:
Status Quo Is an Expensive Proposition
March 2, 2005
In a recent commentary, former Democratic Congressman Tim Penny?-now a widely recognized leader on Social Security reform?-writes that defenders of only modest changes aimed at defending the traditional structure of Social Security rather than putting it on the road to permanent solvency are "defending an expensive status quo" at great cost to the financial security of American workers. In the following excerpt, Penny describes the proposals of the naysayers and their horrible consequences.

"Some suggest increasing the amount of income subject to the payroll tax. Currently, the 12.4 percent payroll tax is applied only to the first $89,000 of annual income. Applying this tax to all income would certainly raise a lot of revenue?-but it would essentially make the payroll tax an income tax. In effect, increasing the income subject to the payroll tax would require Congress to basically repeal the recently enacted tax cuts?-something Congress is unlikely to do.

"Other defenders of the status quo assert that a modest payroll tax hike could solve the problem. They propose a nearly two percent increase to take effect immediately. The major problem with this approach is that it assumes we can honestly save these dollars for future use. But we have NOT done that with the current Social Security surplus. Ever since payroll taxes were increased (as part of the Social Security fix in 1983), those surplus revenues have been placed in a so-called Trust Fund. The government has consistently used those Trust Funds dollars (totaling $1.7 billion to date) to cover overspending in the rest of the budget. Given that history, by what logic do we believe any new payroll tax increases will be honestly saved?

"Another option is to transfer general fund dollars into the Social Security system. The logic of this approach is that the Social Security Trust Fund has been used to cover general fund obligations (or, better said, general fund deficits)?-so it is only fair that the general fund return the money to Social Security when needed. Here is the rub. Over time, it would necessitate cuts in the general fund equivalent to the size of Food Stamps, Head Start, WIC child nutrition, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Agency, college student loans, the Food and Drug Administration, and more. Obviously, Congress is NOT going to do that. So, where will the money come from?

"On the other hand, if we wait until the year 2018 to raise payroll taxes sufficient to pay for Social Security's ongoing needs, then over a short period of time the payroll tax would need to rise from 12.4 percent to nearly 19 percent of income. Surely, no serious person would argue for such an approach, which essentially punishes tomorrow's workers for the shortsightedness of today's policymakers. Younger workers are already paying far more in payroll taxes than previous generations?-and we are still headed for a fiscal crisis in the program. That is one of the reasons younger Americans have come to believe that Social Security will not be there for them when they retire.

"The bottom line is this: The Social Security status quo is an expensive proposition. All the more reason for legislators of both parties to heed President Bush's call for action to strengthen Social Security?-before we have no option left except to raise taxes."
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/03-02-05.html
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 04:31 pm
foxfyre, I had an inkling that somewhere deep inside you was a sense of humour but until this post
Quote:
Let's go with ideas and leave political parties and/or personalities out of it
I hadn't seen evidence of it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 04:49 pm
The thing is, the whole supposition that SS needs some sort of immediate help is ridiculous.

Why? Because even if it runs defecits for a while, so what? It's exactly how we run our gov't right now, huge defecits, and we don't even count certain costs (i.e, the war).

We have a lot of time to figure out ways to entirely revamp SS. There's no reason to rush and do it right now, as the Republicans are trying to push it.

It's a manufactured crisis.

Quote:
"On the other hand, if we wait until the year 2018 to raise payroll taxes sufficient to pay for Social Security's ongoing needs, then over a short period of time the payroll tax would need to rise from 12.4 percent to nearly 19 percent of income.


Or, we could eliminate the cap on SS taxes, which allows corporations to hide the vast majority of their payrolls above the 90k taxation rate. That would help things quite nicely.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 05:00 pm
well actually the only probelm with Social Security for the repubs is the name SOCIAL which is dangerously close to SOCIALIST. The obvious solution is to rename the program to something more conservative like "revenue enhancement for former wage-earners still living in poverty and their wealthy cousins who don't need it but get it anyway cause FDR was guilty of treason" Whew no wonder it won't fly, the name is too long and complicated.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 05:18 pm
The Williams lies
I usually have a problem with Walter Williams when I fact check him. Well he might be speaking "figuratively" as Foxfire claimed, if you want to fix SS you have to do it LITERALLY.


For anyone interested in the 1936 SS pamphlet it can be found here.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html

You might want to read the benefits part and compare it to Walter Williams claim. There was not a personal account created. The pamphlet doesn't say that. Instead Williams does some creative cutting and pasting to give that impression. See how Williams uses part of the first sentence then the end of a sentence half way through the pamphlet to give his impression.

Helvering Vs Davis can be found here
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=301&invol=619

Again, read it and compare the cut job Williams does to what it really says. Insurance is never once mentioned in the ruling. Interesting note to this court ruling contradicting Williams earlier claim; It states pretty clearly that the only "ACCOUNT" listed in the original law is the "Old Age Reserve ACCOUNT" which is controlled by Treasury to pay out benefits. This ruling is interesting because it contains and discusses much of the original law.

FLEMMING v. NESTOR can be found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=363&invol=603
Case to deny SS benefits to an alien that was deported for being a member of the Communist party. I found the irony extremely funny in how Williams used this case. Imagine the consequences of this if we had to pay the SS benefits of all illegal aliens that are deported after working here.

This one is hysterical from the standpoint of what Williams trotted out. The court states that congress must be able to modify because the "program was designed to function into the indefinite future, and its specific provisions rest on predictions as to expected economic conditions which must inevitably prove less than wholly accurate" Wow, you mean Congress might have to change the law? Isn't that what we are supposed to be discussing here? But Williams turns it into a scare tactic that they can eliminate benefits. Wait. isn't that what private accounts are supposed to do? ELIMINATE benefits.


Now that we have some facts laid out, Williams argument collapses like a house of cards.

Yes, SS has problems. but they are NOT the problems claimed by Williams.
Social Security never claimed you had an account.
Social Security never stated that benefits would never change.
The courts never ruled that "AMERICANS" could lose their SS. (Williams needs to learn what "alien" means I guess.)

I guess it isn't plagerism for Williams to cut and past from his own writings 4 years earlier.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/08-13-99.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 05:24 pm
Greatest Crisis
Quote:
The major problem with this approach is that it assumes we can honestly save these dollars for future use. But we have NOT done that with the current Social Security surplus. Ever since payroll taxes were increased (as part of the Social Security fix in 1983), those surplus revenues have been placed in a so-called Trust Fund. The government has consistently used those Trust Funds dollars (totaling $1.7 billion to date) to cover overspending in the rest of the budget. Given that history, by what logic do we believe any new payroll tax increases will be honestly saved?


Which is the greater crisis?

In 30 years SS will only take in 75% of what it pays
TODAY the US govt only takes in 70% of what it pays out.

I know my answer.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/11/2026 at 07:48:57