Mathematics of the Social Security "Crisis" 1910
ScottyB writes "Here's a good start for reading into the economics and history of the much-discussed 'crisis' in Social Security. It's from the NY Times magazine, so you know the drill...'A Question of Numbers.'"
Liars (Score:3, Insightful)
The heart of the matter is that when Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity lie about something, no one is yet able to mod them down.
the real agenda (Score:4, Insightful)
I can fix the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I forgot, they never put any of this money away for people's retirement like was originally planned. This money is part of their everyday operating expenses. It's just another way to get more tax money.
Re:Shocked, shocked I am (Score:4, Insightful)
And don't depend are social security, I know that I am not.
I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the next 75 years, SS will run at a loss of 3.3T USD. Sounds like a lot huh? Well by comparison, the Bush tax cuts (both of them) will result in less revenue to the tune of 11.6T USD over the next 75 years. So even if you revoke 30% of the Bush tax cut, you can pay for SS over the next 75 years (or maybe a little more to cover interest since they tax revenue and SS benefits demand dont have similar demand curves).
Re:End Social Security (Score:1, Insightful)
Gah! (Score:5, Insightful)
As for this article... Solving the social security budget gap by adding 2% to the payroll tax sounds great... Tax the corporations! Well, it would be great, but corporations take the payroll tax into account when they determin how much you cost them as an employee. As far as they're concerned, the payroll tax is part of the employee's compensation package... Raise the tax, and you're going to see a corresponding drop in salaries or a corresponding rise in unemployment over the long term.
Re:End Social Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Liars (Score:1, Insightful)
One problem with your argument is that you back it up with examples of guys who are (even at their own frequent admission) commentators, and not journalists. The second problem is that neither are "paid to lie" by anyone. They are paid to be themselves. If they lie, that is part of their beliefs. It is not like they have bosses who say "Here's a lie. We are paying you to say it."
The other problem is that you put journalism on some sort of pedestal. It has nothing to do with "democracy", and when you get right down it it, all journalists turn out to be commentators of some kind.
Re:End Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Add to the fact, most people would rather buy a new pair of "kicks" compared to saving that $100 while they are 25 for retirement. People don't realize that if you save when you are young, you will be far better off than when you are in your 30's and decide to start saving.
Re:End Social Security (Score:1, Insightful)
"broken" my windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:End Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
It would, after all, be their own fault, for failing to save properly for old age.
What 'crisis' in Social Security? (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh yeah, crisis in Social Security my ass.
Re:End Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:End Social Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:End Social Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Not as bad as you suggest (Score:1, Insightful)
1) There is no problem, with high certainty, for at least 40 years
2) Some predictions say that there will not be any problem in the projected future (about 60 years from now)
3) Even if there is a problem, it will not "bankrupt" the government, or mean that the program will suddenly cease to function. What will happen is that benefits will be reduced. At worst it would be a 30% reduction.
The "solution" which has been suggested would divert money from the account which pays out to people who are retired now. What would happen is that the "crisis" would be made certain and would happen in the next 10 years. The advantage is that people who are just starting out would have most of their savings in private accounts which would not be affected. The disadvantage is that those who are already retired, or at least ten years into their employment, would see drastically lessened benefits plus the costs of managing the program would increase by billions of dollars.
So as far as real solutions, there are only three: raise taxes, move money from other programs (would be very difficult since SS is expensive), or reduce benefits. Of course those three solutions can be combined in various ways.
Re:Liars (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, as Kingsley Amis once wrote, "Laziness has become the chief characteristic of journalism, displacing incompetence."
What's wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, what's wrong is that many people do not save money for their retirement. No doubt, most of these people do not read /., and yet are probably still aware that they should be saving money for their retirement, but either lack the ability or the will to do so.
The easy answer is to say, "Oh well, that's their fault," but when these people get to be in their 60's, 70's, etc., we as a society are not going to simply let them starve, go homeless, get sick, etc. Social Security could be scaled back by extending the age of collection, etc., and/or it's functionality could be wrapped up into other welfare programs, but it cannot be simply dropped.
Additionally, Social Security is something like a Ponzi scheme, and as such, if you stop paying into it now, then those who have already paid into it won't be able to get back what they put into it. So, it's either tough luck for the under-[insert age here] crowd in the future, or it's tough luck for the baby boomers now. Guess who will win that one?
Re:This whole "There is no crisis" (Score:5, Insightful)
The larger fact is that basic problem is a too large federal deficit, not a systemic social security problem, and the proposed "reform" makes the underlying problem worse, not better.
Re:Liars (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a sad state of affairs when we're left to get our news from the foreign press. If you want to hear Karl Rove and company's daily talking points, you can simply flip on the TV. If you want to know what's really going on you have to dig.
Re:This whole "There is no crisis" (Score:1, Insightful)
Does that about sum it up?
Well, that's not a crisis in my book. Why? It's happened before. More than once. The projected shortfall isn't even the largest projected shortfall Social Security has ever had. Social Security survived those much bigger problems (and if they're not crises, this one sure as hell isn't). You know how? They fiddled with the tax rate. You raise it to increase revenue, you lower it when you don't need so much--go figure that it would work like that.
So it is NOT a crisis. It is a problem that not only has been (easily) solved before, it's not even as big as the problem was when it was solved before!
Now, is Social Security, as a policy/concept inherently screwed up? My opinion is yes, but that's another topic entirely. As it is, there is no crisis.
this is unrealistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Life is unpredictable not everyone who is down and out is irresponcible. Here is a reality check, you get cancer and your insurance policy drops you, yea it happens. your retirement just went to paying for cemo (sp) the reality is social security is there for a reason. I think you shoudl be allowed to direct the investment of a portion of yoru social security however that should be it.
Re:End Social Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Show me where in the constitution it says that the government should be setting up retirement funds for people. You can't; it's not there. Government does not exist to do for the people what the people are unwilling to do for themselves, though many people would like to (and seem to) think.
What about (Score:3, Insightful)
No one was able to mod down Dan Rather either, though I guess he at least had the decency to mod himself down. ;)
All pundits fit this mold and politicians on either side of the fence are often the same.
Re:End Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really that heartless? Do you think it's good for society to have tens of thousands of elerly people and children starving and homeless? It's too bad they didn't save, or perhaps it's too bad their investments went sour, or they were swindled, or some other circumstance you're not considering. But it's a disgusting to deny help to those who need it because you're deciding not the rest of the population isn't as well off as you are.
Re:This whole "There is no crisis" (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, yes. The only solution liberals every put forward. If we only take away some more money from those who are earning it, and give it to those who are not, then everything will be just peachy. Here's a suggestion: instead of raising taxes, those gaseous windbags in Washington could cut bloody spending! But, what am I saying? That would lessen their power, and we can't have that, now can we? The State is mother. The State is father.
Re:I want out (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you want to move to a desert island.
Constitution (Score:2, Insightful)
provide for the
There's two instances. Of course the Constution leaves out the specific "how", that is left for the Congress, Executive, and Judiciary to hammer out.
Re:Liars (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of it is, indeed. Some however is nothing more than groups like FAIR trying to get Fox censored for not sharing FAIR's political views (you know, the groups that push for "their" bias in media, and can't stand anyone else's).
"If you think Conservatism is special and its army of propagandists, advocates, and other helpers would do it for free, you are dreaming"
No. I think that conservativism is like any movement. It has its zealots and "true believers": the Limbaughs, Hannity's, Buckleys etc who would hold their beliefs even if they weren't big media figures. Yes, they would do it for free.
"They know full well their audience doesn't understand the distinction any more than they know who was behind 9-11. "
Call it luck or whatever, but Fox News was the first to report who was behind 9-11.
Re:I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:End Social Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Those seniors have a reasonable expectation that the system they pay into is going to provide for them when they need it; they would not have contributed had it been suggested that they would be no benefits.
Private investment for retirement isn't a bad thing; people are free to do that if they choose. It also means risk however. Social Security reduces risk, but offers a lower rate of return. Think of it as an insurance policy.
See, that's just it (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks like you've bought it hook, line, and sinker. Either that or you work for the NY Times.
Re:I can fix the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
But, alas, people don't save. Instead they run up credit card debt. Rather than have savings that reap modest interest/dividend gains which accumulate over time, they pay out double digit interest on short term debt. That, unfortunately is the nature of our instant gratification lives.
What to do? I am in support of some sort of FORCED savings. You are required to do something to save sensibly for requirement, because I don't want to pay welfare for people that never saved or squandered their retirement savings. (And, no, I'm not a fan of people starving on the street.) We don't want welfare to replace SS. We want to either to fix SS or replace it.
Do I trust the govenment to do the best job of this? Nope. Do I trust private interests to do the best job of this? I'm not sure I do. Enron, World Com, etc. has made me re-evaluate my trust in how forthcoming and reliable the private sector is. Remember the Savings and Loan failures in the 80's?
What I am left to consider is that diversification is probably the best option, spread between both low-risk private and government programs.
One thing I do believe firmly is that the average person wont save suffiently if not required to do so.
Re:This whole "There is no crisis" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd give Bush the benefit of the doubt (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm in TSP (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't i invest all of my social security (my share plus employer share) in TSP? I would come out ahead, and be able to take out a loan against it if i needed to do so, plus i would have 28.5% of my monthly income invested (plus an additonal free 5%!), and wouldn't cause any strain on social security.
Anyone who thinks the admisistrative costs are too high for private savings accounts, should really look into TSP.
Re:Liars (Score:4, Insightful)
That's tawdry.
We have always put journalists on a pedestal in this country, because we understand their importance to our way of life.
Bias in journalism is like drunk driving among teenagers. Some Conservatives say, let's take away the rules, since "you'll never stop those kids anyway," but I think the adults in the country know better - let alone remember better, from pretty recent times.
That's in your opinion.
No. That's a fact.
Do I need to cite surveys confirming widely held beliefs among Americans in various notorious items of misinformation?
Everything you disagree with is not misinformation. Everyone has an interest. Regardless of how much people might hand-wring about it, everyone has an interest.
Translation: everything is fine. No need to worry as we gut the rule book and change the face of American mass media.
Individuals or organizations promoting their view is hardly sociopathic.
Why have the news at all? Why not just have 24/7 commercials?
This is not Soviet Russia. People here have jobs, and we expect them to do them. When something is "the news" we do not expect propaganda, nor do we expect this 3rd-grade relativist "all news is propaganda" bullshit. We can perfectly well tell the difference between CBS and Fox News Network.
I wonder if your bank cleaned out your account, you would claim it was your own fault, because "I'm a sucker for trusting them with all that money."
You somehow think that intense competition and corporate involvement with media is new. It's not. It is, again, exceedingly old and well established within this country. You seem to have this perception that before a certain point in history things were good with regards to journalism, and then something happened, and now it is bad.
You seem to be ignorant of the history of regulation in American media.
Google the Fairness Doctrine.
What's happening now on television and radio is quite new. Things were much better even 10 years ago. Basically, we had a successful conservative-sponsored scheme to eliminate the rules.
Both of the people you mention are fundamentally pushers of opinion
Fox News Network puts paid liars on TV. It lies about its motives and its methods. When it's convenient, its talking heads are "commentators" and are supposed to be excused for their more blatant prevarications. They know full well their audience doesn't understand the distinction any more than they know who was behind 9-11. They just think they are "watching the news."
Making this point in itself is deceptive, since egregious bias in Fox News Network's ostensible "hard journalism" is well-documented.
It seems like you most upset because people with whom you disagree or believe to be lying are able to have power and influence despite your disapproval of them.
I am upset because there is nothing that separates this country from China but journalists and voting booths, and some Conservatives are in the process of crossing journalists off the list.
Diversity of thought, diversity of opinion, and diversity of expression. If you can't accept a point of view, or the person giving it, then ignore that person and move on. There is no need to clamor for censorship.
I do not clamor for censorship, and your misunderstanding is telling. Moderation on slashdot does not censor anything. It does what it is designed to do; control prominence; making the good stuff rise to the top, and relegating bad ideas, incorrect facts, propaganda, deception, and trolling to the bottom.
Social Security = Economic Commons? (Score:2, Insightful)
The question ought to be "what do we do with those who can't help themselves?" How they got that way (very old, infirm, unable to work, etc.) doesn't much affect their need for help.
Once you ask the question that way, the Administration's privatization push sounds an awful lot like a proposal to shift from answering "we'll take care of those who need it" to "those that need it can take care of themselves."
I'd rather help folks out, even if it costs me money. If I'm smart, tough & lucky, I won't need social security benefits when I retire - but I want to be able to enjoy my golden years with a clear conscience.
Re:End Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
If we don't make some sort of transition then someday a generation will be left holding the bag and it will be ugly.
That said, I agree with other posters that the real problem is the budget deficit. It makes SS look like peanuts.
Re:Liars (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget how much you "belive" what they were saying was true, the journalists on CBS manufactured evidence to fit their story in order to make it "true".
When you go around preaching about the evils of having liars on television and then go on to point out only liars whose political beilefs don't agree with your own, you're just a hypocrite.
You don't give a damn about fair journalism, you just don't want anyone talking about views you don't agree with.
Re:End Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if people don't have social security and get REALLY desperate it might get ugly. Crime goes up, riots, neighbourhoods get depressed and real estate prices drop. Think of social security as a 'tax to maintain my lifestyle, not theirs'. Its self-serving, but a realistic perspective. Also, its an insurance policy you never, ever hope to collect upon.
I don't consider Social Security idealistic -- I consider the Horotia Alger myth that anyone can become anything to be idealistic. Social Security is pragmatic, and I think does more for the rich than it does for the poor.
Re:Liars (Score:5, Insightful)
There are, however, quite a number that do have "correct" answers if you are willing to postulate that the commercial interests of a small number of people should not be more important than the good of the community.
This is true at local, state, national, and world scales.
The media used to regard the news as public service, and not so much a source of profit. This changed when they noticed two facts - their news hours have very high viewership by people who earn and spend money, and that even more people tuned in for senational news. I saw a history of TV with regards to that point, and IIRC there were three or four major scandals that got national coverage which were the beginning of the end. So yes it's never been great, but I think it is worse now. Any time news is treated as a money maker, you can forget about hearing about important issues from ANY viewpoint. It's too much like work to listen to important issues.
I agree censorship is a bad idea, but the problem with a pervasive, persuasive and centralized media (e.g. ClearChannel) in a democracy is that without a critically thinking population the system becomes unstable. A functioning democracy is a self correcting system, but a hidden dependancy of that system is that accurate, verifiable information is provided to the people who must make the decisions. I.e., the voters. It's usually AVAILABLE, granted, but if they don't have it and settle for what they are told by an organized media the end result is EXACTLY the same as if they don't have it. If you can get statistically large numbers of them to dance to your tune, you have effectively taken over the country. The key question is, do enough people engage critical thinking to avoid the electorate being systematically manipulated by misinformation?
Not that I advocate changing the system, except perhaps to compel news programs to function on a non-profit basis. People get the government they deserve in a democracy, that's pretty much the rule. So it's up to them, and if they want to throw it away they can.
Clinton on the Social Security crisis (Score:5, Insightful)
July 27, 1998 [nara.gov] Were they singing a different tune back then? Is there only a crisis when a Democrat says there's a crisis?
I'm sorry but "only two people working for every person drawing Social Security" will not work. Social Security will not be able to support itself. Now you may not agree with what has been proposed by the President to reform Social Security, but you shouldn't be so childish and stupid to deny that a problem exists.
--
It works. [wired.com]
Free Flat Screens [freeflatscreens.com] | Free iPod Photo [freephotoipods.com]
Re:Shocked, shocked I am (Score:1, Insightful)
A bad tenant can easily reduce the value of a house by $20,000 in a few months. (Students are notoriously bad tenants.)
Non-paying and destructive tenants are very hard to get rid of (depending on local laws).
Damage control and rent collection aren't necessarily work-free, even with decent tenants.
Buying rental properties may be a wise choice for you, but it's not automatically wise for everyone.
Re:End Social Security (Score:2, Insightful)
So let's say I'm tucked away in my mansion, happily retired. What does it matter to me that there's twenty 65-year-olds starving to death within a block of my house and I have more than enough to feed them for the rest of their lives. What does it matter to me? I'll give to them if I WANT to and I don't happen to want to.
Damn. The old buggers broke into my mansion and took my HDTV, hocked it, and bought (can you believe it) food. Now they're in jail and I'm paying for their food, clothing, shelter, and health care for the rest of their lives. Dang--this sounds like exactly what I was avoiding, except I missed "Everybody Loves Raymond" for like two weeks while my insurance sorted it out, and of course, the poor old people are probably not enjoying my money as much in jail as they would have if they were free.
That's not to say that all starving people will resort to crime--but it's certainly an incentive. Those who die without a fight can still get back at you by having their corpses contibute to the cholera epidemic that sweeps your neighborhood.
As a later poster said: you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We're not asking you to make them happy. We're asking you to keep them alive. There are consequences, other than legal and moral, for our not keeping your fellow man alive when you have the means.
Re:End Social Security (Score:5, Insightful)
well, of course, it isn't in the constitution. but the constitution does give congress the power to make laws to deal with the problems of society.
apparently congress thinks it's more important to make sure old people aren't starving on the streets than to give DataStalker an ideological hand-job.
Re:I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not right or left, I'm central. But, please tell me what platform Al Gore ran on in 2000. I do recall being hit on the head with the phrase "lock box" about a billion times. The Democrats are notorious for running on platforms of "But my opponent wants to plunder Social Security and hates old people!"
Of course the numbers are political. But the reality is this:
- Politicians don't know how to reduce spending.
- Politicians have been spending the SS income rather than investing it for years now.
- There are going to be more people collecting from SS when the baby boomers retire than there will be contributing to it.
- Politicians bought votes in years past by adjusting the cost of living based on wage inflation, versus the previous (more reasonable) way of calculating it based on regular inflation.
It's time to pay the piper.
If you raise taxes, it won't help social security, it will result in more spending, though. Want proof? Please refer to the last 70 years of spending increases by the government.
I don't agree with Bush on much, but I like his ideas for SS reform. It's a broken system. You can either start to fix it, or you can try to prop it up until it completely collapses.
Re:End Social Security (Score:5, Insightful)
No society has been able to progress and remain competitive with the shortsighted advice you've proposed here. Social Security is just a cheaper way to protect rights than "letting the market take care of it". Wealth equals power, the Social Security payments ensure that old people have the power to defend their rights instead of depending on the government to make sure they aren't violated.
The word justice is all over the Constitution and the Federalist Papers; Social Security fits the Founding Father's idea of justice, hence it's in the Constitution. Your argument about being something that people are unwilling to do for themselves is a canard. Only a half-hearted attempt to understand this nation's founding and history could lead you to the conclusions you've vomited all over this page.
Re:End Social Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Crikey. Way past time to just admit that Social Security is a crack-pot idea that only suceeds in making people dependent on government.
Why won't anyone come out and say that it is *NOT MORAL* to take a chunk of a person's income by force, before they even get a chance to see it, for whatever purpose?
Re:Sure. (Score:3, Insightful)
You would work harder for the $10K right? Higher marginal tax rates suppress growth.
Would you hire an accountant if he could get you that extra $3K if you only got the $7K? Would you accept $2k in benefits over nothing? High tax rates cause avoidance of taxes. Low tax rates make the cost of avoidance higher than the benefit
Would you be more likely to start a business if you knew that you would be taxed on revenue even before you made a profit, making it a more risky venture? High marginal tax rates suppress growth. Look at Belgium if you're curious about tax evasion.
Decreasing taxes increases growth.
Look here for some more intuition. [heritage.org]
The problems with the budget today have to do with overspending, and not under-taxing.
Re:I want out (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell yes SS is a Ponzi scheme (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Granted SS is not an intentionally criminal enterprise, I think it's intentions are good, but it does have a strong resemblence to a pyramid scheme thanks to demographics. People are living longer which is not compensated for in the plan. To wit:
* There is no belief that there are large profits coming from something; rather, it is clear that these are pay-as-you go systems, where workers (at any given time) are providing money to those who have retired.
Sure there is a belief. There is a belief that the profits are going to come from future taxpayer dollars. Problem is that people are living longer and the population growth isn't sufficient to maintain this, especially after the baby boomers retire. The only reason it is a "pay-as-you-go" system is because Congress can't help themselves and raid SS for every extra penny that comes in every year for purposes other than Social Security. That money should be invested for future retirees and used for no other purpose but it isn't.
* There is no growth of incoming funds driven by the enticement of high returns over a short period of time, with new investors continually entering in order to support payouts to early investors.
There is a continual growth of incoming funds from working taxpayers funding "high" returns for existing retirees (read early investors). Granted it isn't to the level (50%+ returns) one usually associates with a Ponzi scheme but the principle is basically the same. Eventually demographics will catch up and the number of retirees will be too large to be supported by the workers without changes to the program. That's exactly how pyramid schemes fail.
* State pension systems are in some way insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.
If it were truly an insurance program that intended to remain solvent, it would have to adjust either the retirement age or the benefits paid. Besides, do you know how insurance companies work? They take in payments, invest that money and then pay out what they have to in claims. Whatever is left over is profit. But SS money is NOT invested (pay-as-you-go remember?) so it really does not resemble an insurance program at all.
* Because receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for periods beyond that timeframe, there will never be a sudden collapse.
The amount of money that comes in from taxes is HIGHLY variable and is not at all easy to calculate. Don't know where you got that idea. The reason California found itself way overbudget these last few years is precisely because they planned to spend money and then ended up with less in tax revenue than expected. Predicting tax revenue is anything but a science. One good recession will screw up even the best models.
* General tax revenues can be used to supplement worker payments into the systems, although many taxpayers will be unhappy with such supplementation. Similarly, benefits can be reduced through the political process, either across-the-board or by reducing benefits to the well-off, although there will clearly be opposition by those who will get less.
You ever tried to take away benefits or salary from someone? There is a reason SS is called the third rail. A politician touches it and he dies. True, in theory benefits can be adjusted but the political reality is that taking benefits away from old people is political suicide and not likely to happen anytime soon.
Re:I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing like looking at one number and not seeing or even understanding what it all means.
Re:I want out (Score:2, Insightful)
A free society is a compromise with its citizens. We give a little we get a little. We all agree to drive on the right hand side and we get plenty of roads and fewer accidents.
Social Security is that type of compromise. FDR watched as the eldery, disabled and unemployed were dying in the streets. Completely destitue. Social Security was designed to help those less fortunate. If you are one of the more fortunates, blessed with good health, good education and a good job count yourself lucky. And now consider the millions of elderly, blind, deaf, orphaned citizens that share the land of the free with you and how well you would sleep at night knowing some of them lay dying in the streets while you enjoyed being able to afford that 50" HDTV instead of having to settle for only 35"
Let them eat cake.
Re:Liars (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you get propaganda is often dependent on your own viewpoint. Consider the following statements that build with each iteration, and consider how they can be taken by people reading them.
Adam was killed.
Adam was killed by Bob.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen from his roommate.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen from his roommate, who is a police officer.
Depending on the details presented, which are often constrained by time on TV/radio or space in print, one could have various views based on the information presented. It could be a reaction that crime is a problem, that gun ownership is a problem, that gun theft is a problem, that gun storage is a problem, or that carelessness with guns is a problem. Depending on your viewpoint, each person will take each statement differently. For some people, a given statement will reinforce their beliefs, and for others, it will fly in the face of them. Some will be inquisitive and ask for more detail, and some will ignore it entirely because it doesn't affect them.
I bounce around a lot of news organizations -- CNN, Fox, AP, Reuters, NYT, LA Times, OC Register, NPR, and a bunch of others. I even visit Pravda's English site sometimes, if only for the occasional chuckle at the oddities that appear there. Most of the stories are pretty much the same from organization to organization, no matter who originally wrote them, because journalism is, at its core, a pretty basic thing. Who, what, when, where, why, how?
But if the story is more complex, or has conflicting information, then it gets much more difficult. For example, You have ten different sources for information; which information is considered the best? You have some long-time informants telling you one thing, and they've always panned out in the past, but you have two new informants telling you something quite different, neither of which know about each other but whose stories are almost exactly alike. Whom do you believe? Which do you put first in your story, and how much emphasis do you give them? From twelve hours of interviews, which quotes do you select to tell the story the most accurately? What does your gut tell you? Has your gut ever been wrong?
Being a journalist is seriously hard work and can be painful, because no matter what you say, someone is going to say that you said too much or not enough, that you slanted something this way or that. I do not envy them.
Re:I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there isn't a problem at all. The governemnt has robbed the SS fund for years, diverting payments into the general fund and buying tanks and such with SS funds. SS will be viable as long as the governemnt makes the payments. When it is easier to pretend it is just another income source, they rob it blind. When it becomes a drain, then they pretend it is an independent program that can't be paid for out of the general fund.
Notice that prior to the present time that there was a surplus? Where is that money? Why wasn't that set aside to pay for future SS needs? The SS problem isn't one of the future, it is one of the past. We were robbed. The reparations would be to take the future money needed from the same place the stolen funds were diverted, the general fund.
Re:You can always invest in Treasury debt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Too large of a tax and you reduce employment, reducing the total revenues. Why? Because FICA is a tax on employment. Most people have to work, but that still leaves a lot of people who don't have to. Maybe they will retire a couple of years early. Maybe they'll leach off their parent's for a few more years.
No, the best solution is to solve the core problem, and not put bandaids on the symptoms. The core problem is that social security is a giant pyramid scheme. The concept itself is broken and needs to be discarded.
Re:I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly what it was used for before it became social security.
Just because the government is bad at saving money, does not mean that the general populace will be any better; they do however, have the possibility of being woefully worse.
Re:I can fix the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that really our nature? Perhaps people don't save precisely because they know the welfare state will bail them out, no matter how much debt they run up. Maybe if we made people responsible for their own actions for once, they would actually act responsibly.
Re:I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not right or left, I'm central. But, please tell me what platform Al Gore ran on in 2000. I do recall being hit on the head with the phrase "lock box" about a billion times. The Democrats are notorious for running on platforms of "But my opponent wants to plunder Social Security and hates old people!"
Bush may not hate old people, but he certainly wants to plunder Social Security.
Remember, Bush and his supporters are ideological conservatives, and as such they are ideologically opposed to "wasteful" social programs, because they believe that giving things that aren't earned to people is immoral (fostering dependency). Social Security is by far the most successful U.S. social program ever, in that it has fostered a tremendous increase in the standard of living for retirees. Since a successful social program would endanger mass acceptance of their worldview, they are trying to destroy it, thereby "proving" that the conservative worldview is the correct one.
Let's examine some of your other assertions:
Politicians don't know how to reduce spending.
Sure they do. Just not the kind of spending they like. Liberal politicians would love to eliminate spending for missile defence, and conservatives want to eliminate spending for Head Start.
Politicians have been spending the SS income rather than investing it for years now.
True. But SS was never designed as a "retirement savings" system. It was more like, "You pay to support your elders, and your youngers will pay to support you". There is a baby-boom bubble coming, and it will require increased taxes/reduced benefits to cover it, but it's not a crisis. It's fixable, and it's temporary.
There are going to be more people collecting from SS when the baby boomers retire than there will be contributing to it.
This statement is just plain wrong. If it were true, there would be more people over 65 than there are in the work force 18-65, which just doesn't compute. There will be a bubble, where they ratio may drop to 2 workers to 1 retiree, but it's temporary.
Politicians bought votes in years past by adjusting the cost of living based on wage inflation, versus the previous (more reasonable) way of calculating it based on regular inflation.
I'm in complete agreement with you here. And furthermore, this change alone would make the system solvent therough the baby-boom bubble. Nothing else need be done.
If you raise taxes, it won't help social security, it will result in more spending, though. Want proof? Please refer to the last 70 years of spending increases by the government.
70 years? Where did that come from? Ah yes. 1935. The Great Depression. Americans were literally starving in the streets.
There's a reason for government spending and social programs. It's to smooth out the peaks and valleys in the natural economic system.
I don't agree with Bush on much, but I like his ideas for SS reform. It's a broken system. You can either start to fix it, or you can try to prop it up until it completely collapses.
You sound like you've been reading too many White House or Cato Institute press releases. The system is not broken. There is no crisis. This "crisis" is being manufactured by the right-wing because that's the only way they'll convince moderates to go along with such a risky, reactionary, and thoughoughly unecessary return to 1929.
Re:Liars (Score:2, Insightful)
By definition if you lie, you yourself do not believe what you are saying. Or are you suggesting that deliberate falsification of facts by commentators is acceptable--i.e., if they think it necessary for some reason (e.g., the greater good) to lie, they should be permitted to do so because they are commentators?
If so, a fascinating glimpse into the heart of Republican "morality." See the recent rash of Republican pundits who have said in essence that yes, they cheated in the election, but it's all right because they would have won anyway.
Re:Liars (Score:3, Insightful)
>
> And stock is just a series of IOU's from corporations, and bank accounts are just a series of IOU's from the banks, etc. How is Social Security's investment in the Treasury any different than any other investment in anything?
Stock is not an IOU from a corporation. It represents ownership. When a corporation is worth something, a little sliver of it is also worth something. When you buy and sell stock, you're just trading the little slivers of a company (maybe a desk or a coffee machine's worth) for money.
Bank accounts are not IOUs from banks. They represent property. The bank is contractually obliged to give you that money on demand. That's what "money" in a checking or savings account is. It's as real as what's in your wallet.
Social Security's investment in Treasury bonds is not the same thing. The bonds may be real, but Supreme Court [ssa.gov] ruled in 1960 that people who paid into SS do not have a right to any of that money. When you "buy" into SS, you don't own anything.
> Hmm, my parents and surviving grandparents LOVE me. I'm sorry that yours don't, and you seem to think that's the norm.
The intergenerational arguments cut both ways.
(Hmm, do you love your children and surviving grandchildren? I'm sorry that you don't, as you seem to prefer that someone else take care of them :)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The story was fake (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that Bush _was_ AWOL. Did not meet his committments. Guardsmen today who did what Bush did would be in the brig for a long time or wose.
Re:Shocked, shocked I am (Score:3, Insightful)
I Repeat: SOCIAL SECURITY IS FINE! RTFA!
It was coughing up blood last night...
So if the Republicans increase their majority in the Senate in a couple of years, will the education system get better too?
I think the Democrats just don't want the Republicans writing the reform plan. From the Demodrats' point of view, there's nothing wrong with that. The Democrats don't want the Republicans messing it all up.
The problem is, every politician for the last many years has used the impending retirement of the boomers to try to scare grannie into voting for them. Now they're hostage to the rhetoric that used to serve them so well.
Re:Shocked, shocked I am (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh...exactly who does survive retirement:)?
Thanks for pointing this out.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Incorrect.
The population doesn't have to grow, just the payroll base. A working age generation can support a sizable retirement generation IF the folks working are making more money relative to what the retirement generation needs to retire on.
As for me, I'm proud to pay my SS payment because I respect those who have worked hard for 40-50 years: they deserve no less. You can save all you want my friends, but disasters/tragedies/economic collapses happen and you can't guarentee that you'll have savings when you're 65-70. God Bless SS and FDR.
Re:See, that's just it (Score:4, Insightful)
So don't drive on their roads, apply for student loans, land got flooded out.. oops... no money for flood control.. were you just invaded.. oops.. no money for the military.. good thing you have your money.
I've got a little bit of news for all you "it's my money" people.. We're living in a *society* and it's not every man for himself. Society needs to be contributed to if it's going to work at all.
Re:Ponzi scheme (Score:3, Insightful)
In Social Security, continuing generations are infinite. So it doesn't fall apart.
That's hardly a minor difference. It makes *all* the difference.
Yes, if earth gets blown up from a meteor, then the younger folks who have paid payroll taxes will be screwed out of their social security. But somehow I don't think they'll care.
Re:I can fix the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's actually not true, because it's not necessary. The US Government, at least as defined by the Constitution, starts with ZERO. Then the people, by way of the Constitution, delegate a short list of powers to the government.
So saying that the govt's powers is limited is actually meaningless. You have to recognize that we, the people, have all the power except those few things we've explicitly GIVEN to the government.
Re:Liars (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously haven't watched them, have you? They will only --ever-- say that what they are saying is opinion when they've made a serious mistake and want to avoid being held responsible. In any condition other than that they loudly insist that they are totally objective, spin-free, fair, balanced and damn anyone else who doesn't think so. Seriously, watch Fox and see this pattern unfold.
Re:I can fix the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a wild idea- let's give up 6% of corporate profits to make sure every single person gets a living wage. Let's protect those jobs by eliminating the WTO and the neo* death cults that Clinton and Bush have made public. Let's actually protect our borders. Let's not import more than we export. Do all of that- and maybe individual people would be able to act resposibly because the rich have set a good example instead of an evil one.
Re:Clinton on the Social Security crisis (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I can fix the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've read this article before it was on /.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't quite work that way, does it?
Unlike Social Security, national defense is one of the very few jobs the Constitution lays out for our government.
Whether you believe Iraq posed a grave security risk to the united states is an important point for debate, however you cannot debate that the government's primary role is to organize an army for the defense of the nation.
I see nothing in the constitution that says, take money away from every working person, stick it into an account, spend the interest earned off of it, and try to pay them back when they get older.
Now be a good boy and give Mommy back her AOL account.
How about studying the Constitution a bit instead of sinking to ad hominem attacks?
Re:Where is the fantasy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, the man is a proven incompetent and walking mediocrity, with a track record of failure and destruction.
Given his performance on Iraq and national security, I don't see what evidence exists that the man is competent for any other significant responsibility.
Yes, I hate the idea of such a person taking it upon himself to fix *anything*. I wouldn't trust him to change a tire and do it right.
Given the man in charge, I'm more interested in preventing the inevitable disaster. Cleaning up after Bush would be far more expensive and difficult than doing it right in the first place.
I have had my eyes open, and that has made clear that Bush is lying out his ass, making the baby jesus cry with his deceptions.
A good solution to the Social Security problem cannot be based on lies. Therefore, a good solution cannot be created by George W. Bush.
Re:Shocked, shocked I am (Score:3, Insightful)
"Fairness" isn't the point of SS. The point of SS to provide a safety net so that a good chunk of our country's elderly don't end up destitute.
Re:Make a simple graph (Score:3, Insightful)
Because his post contained the following (highly logical) assumption: where B > A - this is Capitalism.
Why is it a logical assumption? If your pay was taxed 100%, and you received no additional benefit from going to work, would you go to work or sit on your ass all day goofing off?
Re:Since you choose to remain blind... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Your staggering level of accumulated hatred is going to hit you up for a pretty big Karma charge, I would prepare for that if I were you."
If you're talking about real-world Karma, you should be warning Bush. I haven't sent scores of people to their execution without even a cursory interest in their cases. I didn't approve torture. I haven't killed thousands of innocent civilians. I haven't courted the approval of bigots and treated a large segment of the population as sub-humans.
I have merely opposed those things. I think my Karma is just fine, thanks. Opposing right-wing authoritarians is good for the soul.
If you're talking about Slashdot Karma, well, I'll earn it back.
Re:I can fix the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
"Socialist program" does not always equal "bad". A certain amount of help for the poor can lead to a nicer society for all without sacrificing a core capitalist system.
Using "socialism" almost as a curse word instead of a simple desctiption is one sure way to avoid real discussions about pros and cons. It's almost always an indication the user of such a word has no real desire to understand the subject but rather wants to bully the oppposition into silence.
Sorry, I don't feel like being afraid of your word.
TW
Re:Make a simple graph (Score:3, Insightful)
The really proposterous idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The big problem is borrowing against SS (Score:2, Insightful)
Analogy: I'm a trustworthy guy; if you lend me $500 I'll pay you back when you need it. Your money is safe. But if I lend myself $500, write myself an IOU, and spend the money, when I need that money I'm going to have to go out and work for it. Just like I would've had to do if I didn't have the IOU.
The Social Security trust fund is the same kind of accounting fiction as the IOU that I write to myself. The government collects the money, and spends it. When it needs that money later, it has to collect taxes to pay itself off. Which is exactly what it would do if there were no "trust fund".
I respect Republicans for being willing to talk honestly about Social Security, while the Democrats seem committed to claiming there's no problem. Unfortunately Bush's attempts to fix Social Security are completely undermined by the fact that he's running up huge government debts at the same time.
So I ask again: what else should have been done with the S.S. money?
Probably nothing different. By spending it, as we did, we kept our real (as opposed to official) Federal deficits from being as high as they would've been - which is saving, in a sense (just like if I used that $500 I lent myself to pay off my credit cards). But whatever we should have done with it, we should acknowledge that we don't have it anymore.
The social contract is being rewritten.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxes of 12-odd percent of our income are taken for SS.
That's 12.4% (6.2% of which is paid by the employer). Unless, of course, you make more that $87,000, in which case, your rate can be significantly lower. Someone with an annual income of $500,000 would pay about 2.16% in FICA Tax (Federal Insurance Contributions Act, a name we will get back to in a minute). Someone with $500,000 of unearned income (i.e. dividends, capital gains) would pay 0.00% in FICA tax. That makes the Social Security tax a regressive tax, in that low wage earners pay a higher percentage than high wage earners.
If you invested that money in private accounts, you'd be wealthy by the time you retired, even if you made some seriously bad investment decisions.
Yes, and if twinkies grew on pine trees, nobody would ever go hungry. The money is not a pension. It is not a retirement plan. It's not even yours. It's a fee you pay for the privledge of working in this country. In addition, it is an insurance policy. (Note the acronym above "Federal INSURANCE Contributions Act") It's poverty insurance. Congratulations! You're covered.
I'll assume you own a home and pay for fire insurance. I would even bet that your state or local government requires that you purchase fire insurance. With a little luck, your house will never burn down. After 20 years of good luck, are you going to start calling your insurance company to demand "return on your investment?" Feel free to try. Give them a call and tell them you're being "ripped off" because you haven't collected on your investment. Tell them that you're tired of them giving "your" money to people who weren't smart enough not to burn down their houses.
There's a difference between an investment and an expense. Insurance is an expense. Get used to it.
I know it's a social program, it's about the social contract and so on, but if the social contract is as one-sided as SS is, well, I want out. Period.
It IS a social contract. And if you want out of the contract move to Argentina, asshole. That's ssuming they'll take you. That's your way out of Social Security. Go somewhere else. Get a job making sneakers for Nike in Southeast Asia. Do it today and you'll never pay another cent in FICA.
I've never understood how so many the rich in this country think that they get no benefit from taxation. Do you think that your investments would be doing well if senior citizens were starving in the streets. Do you think that the social unrest that comes with extreme poverty is going to leave you untouched? (That's not to mention that the rich are the primary beneficiaries of most of the government spending in this country.)
You want to live here, pay your fair share and stop bitching. If you don't want to pay your fair share, what makes you think we want you here?
If you're making over $100K and you can't find another 12% of your income to stash away, you're doing something wrong. If you're making significantly less than $100K, you're probably going to need social security and you'd better hope it's there when you need it.
By the way, I'm rich... I'm also undertaxed.
Re:Liars (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: as far as I know there is no actual evidence, because if I had actually seen it I would just provide a link, but please go do the research to back up my outrageous claims for me. Thank you.
Race matters....only to racists.
What part of hell do lying race baiters go to?
As long as it is not falsely labelled as programming for kids, that is fine.
Oh, you hypocrite.
Don't back out on me now, Mr. Too Much of a Civil Libertarian. You are claiming you have the right to do exactly that.
How could we stop you, Mr. Porn-is-for-Kids? What kind of government interference won't square with your Wacko "I Failed out of Law School" Interpretation of the First Amendment?
False advertising, and hardcore porn (labeled as "Sex Education" for 8 year olds) between Pokemon and Mr. Rogers, is legal in your world, and you cannot prevent it. "Don't like it? Change the channel. It's a free country." That's the heart of what Fox News Network really is. And thank you, for such a stunningly sloppy response - I doubt you could make it much easier to show how intellectually bankrupt your ideas are.
I guess I am too much of a civil libertarian to want the government to decide what speech is "fair" and what isn't!
It already does, in 1001 ways. It decides what is false advertising and what's not, for instance. What is slander, libel, what threatens the President, what is obscene and profane... And until very, very recently when a cabal of conservatives and media conglomerates changed the rules, it decided what was biased. The system worked, until conservatives broke it.
And why did they break it? Because they were planning to broadcast propaganda, at that was illegal.
It's fortunately relatively easy to identify propagandists like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, and quite understandable to want to ban them from the airwaves.
I named and described a rather famous report from a while ago. You are too lazy to look it up, but not too lazy to whine "gimme a link". I am beginning to wonder if you even know what FAIR's own web site is.
You are stunning, sir. Make outrageous, obviously false claims, and then call people lazy when they don't run to justify them for you.
To get yourself out of this deep dark hole, you need to cite the report, and then list what you think is false about it, and then give us some reason to believe you have changed your personal philosphy about a fact being whatever you assert to be a fact.
A fact is a fact, whether or not you or I agree.
And it is a fact, AtariAmarok that you are a communist terrorist sympathizer, who is a personal friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden.
Now, let's start at the beginning. How is it that we distinguish "lies" from "facts?"
Hint #1: long, long ago, we determined that providing some kind of reference to back up what you are saying, like say a link or bibliographic citation... I believe they used to teach this sort of thing in elementary school.
Social InSecurity (Score:3, Insightful)
But Social Security is bad insurance and a terrible investment. It offers a negative return on your money as a retirement program and negligible benefits as insurance. The death benefit, for example, is $255, which isn't enough even for the most skimpy of funerals.
I have a right to say that I want a specific fire insurance policy. If it's sold, I can buy it.
I have a right to invest with about ten billion companies. If there's an investment approach, there's a fund to support it.
Why is it that there is compulsory social insurance, a package that in my view provides lousy benefits at an extremely high price, that I cannot change?
What if I could invest in anything I wanted under the umbrella of social insurance?
That's what Social Security private accounts would do. In my opinion, it is righting a long-standing injustice, pure and simple.
If society, whatever that is, says we need social insurance, whatever that is, fine. But let us choose the policy that's best for us. At minimum, then, let's choose a policy that actually offers a positive return on our investment, and is not dependent on an increasing population to pay benefits.
That's what Bush is proposing with Social Security Private Accounts. Tell me what's wrong with that. It seems to me that it's common sense that if you invest money for your retirement, or to protect you when you're sick and disabled, you should be able to manage that money on your own.
One size fits all went out with Henry Ford.
D
PS Social Security hurts the poor more than anyone else, since they don't have the investment money we do. SS
Re:Liars (Score:3, Insightful)
That's subjective. Subjective claims depend on a frame of reference, objective claims do not. Your statement is correct in some frames of reference and not in others, and is therefore subjective.
Now, I thought what we were really talking about was objectivity. Fox presents objective facts that you would hear nowhere else on TV (particularly the mainstream broadcast media). That's not to say that every claim they present is an objective fact; far from it. They are subject to a frame of reference like everyone else.
But the question I have is: why is there such hostility toward Fox's presentations?
If I don't like CBS, I don't watch it. Unless someone is presenting fake documents, etc., I really just don't care much, and vote with my eyeballs.
I think the hostility is that Fox is getting great ratings, and broadcast media is declining, symbolizing people aligning politically with Fox's ideas. I don't agree with many of the things they get involved with ( drug war, whatever ), but it's not the end of the world to listen to a little of the other side's viewpoint once in a while.
Re:Sure. (Score:3, Insightful)
You would work harder for the $10K right? Higher marginal tax rates suppress growth.[/QUOTE]
Of course this ignores that their is a maximum of the amount of 'hard work' that can be increased, and that each additional dollar is 'worth less' to the individual, and that there will generally be diminishing returns. Look up 'marginal utility' and 'marginal efficiency'. Also look up 'elasticity and utility'.
[QUOTE]Would you hire an accountant if he could get you that extra $3K if you only got the $7K? Would you accept $2k in benefits over nothing? High tax rates cause avoidance of taxes. Low tax rates make the cost of avoidance higher than the benefit [/QUOTE]
Again this deals with marginal utility and marginal efficiency, and the elasticity of utility. Even a low tax rate will have individuals to whom the utility of avoidance will be significant. Some silly examples - for someone making 2$ a year, a tax rate of 100% isn't really worth avoiding since the 2$ have little or no utility. For someone making a billion dollars a tax rate of 1% is worth avoiding. If there is the death penalty for tax evasion, then it might be worth paying more than the tax rate. The utility of avoidance varies with the individuals income, the tax rate, and also with enforcement and expected penalities.
[QUOTE]Decreasing taxes increases growth.[/QUOTE]
Taxes fund things like education, communication and transport infrastructure, the military, financial institutes etc. Thus decreasing taxes can result in increased marginal cost of labor, increased logistics costs, loss of property (or increased cost of protecting property), increased cost of contract enforcement, etc. possibly resulting in a decrease of growth resultant from a decrease in taxes.
Wanniski and Laffer are not sources of quality analysis on economics.
LetterRip
Re:Social InSecurity (Score:5, Insightful)
But Social Security is bad insurance and a terrible investment.
Repeat after me: "Social Security is not an investment."
It offers a negative return on your money as a retirement program
Repeat after me: "Social Security is not a retirement program."
and negligible benefits as insurance.
Which are better than no benefits at all to those who need them.
The death benefit, for example, is $255, which isn't enough even for the most skimpy of funerals.
Repeat after me: "Social security if not life insurance. It's there to make sure you can eat at least once a day, even if you lose everything else."
I have a right to say that I want a specific fire insurance policy. If it's sold, I can buy it.
Yes, but this is not an individual policy. It's "social insurance." Insurance for society. Your retirement benefit is only one aspect and it's there to make sure you get to eat when you get old. The reason is that society benefits if you aren't starving. Society also benefits if you get to enough money to afford food after you get brain damaged in a motorcycle accident.
You have the right to buy any supplemental retirement insurance you want. In fact you'd better, assuming you want to do anything besides eat in your retirement.
I have a right to invest with about ten billion companies. If there's an investment approach, there's a fund to support it.
Yes, and you have a right to purchase any auto insurance that you want, but you still need that basic liability coverage (at least in California). If you want comprehensive, spend the extra bucks, but you can't drop your liability coverage. It's part of the social contract you entered when you got your driver's license.
What if I could invest in anything I wanted under the umbrella of social insurance?
I'm assuming that, out of self interest, you would choose the policy that you think benefits you the most, and that benefits society the least. Apparently you are short sighted enough to think that if your neighbor is starving, it doesn't affect you.
That's what Bush is proposing with Social Security Private Accounts. Tell me what's wrong with that. It seems to me that it's common sense that if you invest money for your retirement, or to protect you when you're sick and disabled, you should be able to manage that money on your own.
You are currently able to do all of that and much, much more with your own money. Go right ahead. I reccomend that everyone do exactly that. Invest for your retirement. Buy disability insurance. Repeat after me: "The FICA taxes I paid are NOT my money. It is money that I am required to spend for the benefit of society. The benefit I receive from this is beyond the financial benefit I receive during my retirement."
And, of course, that is most definitely not why GWB wants private accounts. The purpose of private accounts is to bankrupt a successful social insurance program in order to demonstrate the "failure of the welfare state" which "places undue burden on the wealthy."
Social Security hurts the poor more than anyone else, since they don't have the investment money we do. SS /is/ their investment money. If they had the freedom to invest it as they wanted, everyone would be better off. That's my argument, pure and simple.
Another GOP myth (i.e. lie). It is predominantly the poor who receive more of social security than they paid in FICA taxes. (That would be even more true if we got rid of the damn FICA ceiling.) For the wealthy, the converse is true, which explains the GOP maneuvers to kill it.
Re:Here's one critique of the article (Score:3, Insightful)
And on the other article, the point made by the orignal author is that any estimates into the future are error prone to say the least. Secondly the reality is that crisis only begins when Social Security has run out of money from previous surpluses. Until then it a problem for the govt, and their mis-management of the money that Social Security has so kindly lent them.
I am not a USian. I never wish to be one. I could not care less about Social Security. It is unlikely to ever impact my life in any way shape or form. But please try to examine the facts as they stand from a neutral viewpoint.
What happened to talking about the article? (Score:2, Insightful)
Social Security shouldn't be a Right vs. Left issue. It should be a 'This would be a better solution because (insert data and theories here)' issue.
Re:What about (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate this kind of "argument".
Even though both sides have made mistakes, if you put CBS's long, distinguished history up against Fox's tawdry few months, there is a great difference in quality. It's the same comparing Rather's 40+ years in print and TV journalism and comparing it with O'Reilly's distinguished hisory on Inside Edition or Hannity's history of... oh yeah, nothing. Saying they're both "the same" is akin to saying that Pol Pot was like Abe Lincoln because they both declared war and, as a result, got people killed.
Your statement is both disingenuous and stupid. But I guess, from your use of it, that Fox has also lifted the level of logic in this country by training it's viewers well in their tactics.
Re:There aren't any hungry homeless in Denmark (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to "You got more than the poor person, so since I'm government and I'm morally righteous I'm going to steal from you and give your money to the poor person (all while I take a cut off the top for myself of course)."