George Will Wants Those Lazy Seniors Off The Dole
By Nicole Belle Sunday Oct 28, 2007 9:02pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather for vids)
I had originally planned to focus this post on campaign tactics of Barack Obama and his attempt to stand out from the pack by attacking Hillary on the subject of Social Security, which as the NY Times' Paul Krugman points out, is not as big a problem as Republicans would have you believe--in fact, they hate it because it's not a big problem. That said, I do think that Barack's stance of expanding the income cap is a good one.
But then George Will had to chime in and say something so completely through-the- looking-glass bizarre that I had to change my whole focus. Watch how Will just proves Krugman right:
Sixty-five days from now, the first of 78 million baby boomers begun (sic) to retire. Most Americans who collect Social Security begin to collect it at age 62, which is absurd. We have the public subsidizing increasingly long and comfortable retirement of people for a third to a half of their adult lifetime. Now. That's why one in four voters in 2004 was over 60 years old. The elderly have the biggest stake in the welfare state, which exists to transfer wealth to them. So this is, politically, a loser.
Um, WTF??? The rules of Social Security have changed...while it's true that you can begin collecting at the age of 62, you won't get as much as if you wait until 65. And so now George is complaining about subsidizing people for up to half of their lives???? How many 120 year olds do you know, George? Are you suggesting that we should be making those indolent 75 year olds pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get back to work? Those lazy seniors...
UPDATE: via John Amato: (In the above video clip) Paul Krugman believes that Obama's new approach to Social Security was a foolish endeavor. I thought the same thing. Social Security was the first real defeat I can remember that George Bush suffered with the help of the netroots after he won re-election and told America:
During the first press conference after his re-election, Bush said, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."
We've come to see what his style represents all too well... Duncan Black explains:
It's true that Obama didn't assert that there was some huge crisis. But the fact remains that he put the idea out there that Social Security had a "problem" which needs to be fixed and that any serious presidential candidate needs to address the issue in clear detail. So what's the big deal?
Beating back George Bush's plan to kill social security was probably the first major victory for the broadly defined netroots movement. I say that not really knowing if things would have been different if blogs and the like didn't exist, but it seemed like a victory...read on
Login or Register to post comments.
Maybe he's talking about those green-blooded, inhuman vulcans.
He does say a "third to a half of their adult lifetime."
But even so, if adult is 18 and payment starts at 62, then average people should live to 110 (for half).
You also have to wait until you're 65 for Medicare which gives a lot of people thinking of retiring pause.
I'm more concerned about the fact that they have borrowed against SS to the point it's all smoke and mirrors. To be paid back how? Taxes? Magic Fairies? Oil from Iraq?
Will is cruel boy here, to be sure, but I think he means a 62 year old living to 80 or 90. Plus a third to 80, plus half to 90. Still, he acts as if the elderly should get off their asses and pick up a shovel, or a Wal-Mart bib.
I stand corrected, Mateo is right, he did say ADULT lifetime. Centenarians serving Happy Meals is not a good future.
Fuck this moron.
Get down with the only candidate who wants to represent you.
Not the uber-rich who pay this vile scumbag's salary to mouth absurdist lies.
It's crunch time folks. Get progressive or you will be living in a cardboard box while Will's heirs whip by in
their armored limos.
Who knows someone who is living comfortably on Social Security alone? George Will is a dip-shit, there is no WEALTH transferring to the elderly in this country, Social Security will barely keep an old person off of cat food.
So ... if avg lifespan is 78, then people who start collecting SS at 62 can expect to receive payments for 16 years, and 16 is about 20% of 78. How did he come up with 1/3 to 1/2 of their lifespans?!
Serves them right for voting for Repukelean. They put them in power so they should suffer the consequence.
The total years of benefits really doesn't matter. He is implying that the elderly are fat and happy on their SS checks. Do you know anybody trying to live on a SS check? Ain't nothing comfortable about it. I tend to disagree with Will on most things, but grudgingly give him credit for being intelligent. This line was simply ignorant and disgusting. Its like Snow bitching that he had to quit being press sect because he can't survive on the > $150K salary he gets. Let them all live on SS for a while.
I'm surprised nobody stated this already: Social Security is not a "gimme" program... WE PAY FOR IT OUT OF OUR EARNINGS. It is a savings account for the future - we are just forced to save by the government.
So, ANYONE saying this is a gimme program needs to be slammed hard. I haven't been paying since I've been working to be "given" anything... I've paid for it.
I hate old people as much as the next guy, but should they work until they die on the job? Of course not. Old people need to be able to retire from work at a reasonable age and still enjoy a decent lifestyle with health care.
How many Americans live to be 124?
How many anybodies?
You know the armed forces are really relaxing their enlistment requirements. Two birds with one kidney stone if you get my drift.
Michael Gass @ 12:
Could it be that we're so accustomed to their skewed framing of the issues that we don't see it and immediately jump on the other fallacies in their argument? I think that must be it. THANKS for pointing it out.
My reports say I don't get retirement until 67 years of age.
Will didn't say the people collect SS for 1/3 to 1/2 of their lifetimes. He said they collect it for 1/3 to 1/2 of their ADULT lifetimes. If we say that one is an adult at age 21, a person who lives to the age of 80 has lived 59 years as an adult. If this person collects SS from 65 until death they have collected SS for 1/4 of their adult lifetime.
You can all play with the numbers to run different scenarios.
The comment about living to 120 missed the point.
On the other hand, George Will, a right wing hack if there ever was one, misses the point. They have paid into SS for most of their adult lifetimes, and if they are like most of us, they paid when they were kids as well. Every industrialized country has universal health coverage and some form of retirement support.
American citizens, senior or otherwise, are hardly a bunch of lazy freeloaders, particularly compared to citizens in other countries. Most of us work our asses off day after day, year after year, and retire on our SS checks to a life near the poverty line.
Will is just an overpaid windbag.
But let's give him hell where he deserves it.
Andotech @ 13:
Your a riot ... "you hate old people as much as the next guy?"
Give me a break, nobody lives on SS, if you can get by on $1500 a month your Houdini living in a cardboard box without chains. And why would anyone hate old people? Too stupid to realize they too will get old?
Soylent Green would be a nice alternative for how to use our Senior population. Though George may not like the idea of a free movie before we put the Elders to "use".
Mateo @ 2:
Yep, to be perfectly fair, he says "a third to a half of their adult lifetime." Technically meaning between one third and one half of the time that they are adults.
There are 44 years between the age of majority (18) and 62.
For someone to receive Social Security for half of their adult life, she would have to live until age 106. (62 + 44)
For someone to receive Social Security for one-third of her adult life, she would have to live until age 93. (If you begin receiving SS at 62, and reach 93, you'll have received SS for 31 years. 31*3=91)
So, for Will to say that we could be doling out Social Security for between one-third and on-half of someone's adult life, isn't all that insane. There are plenty of people receiving Social Security right now between the ages of 93 and 106, right?
All that said, George Will is a twit. And Nicole is right. It's the fact that Social Security (and Medicaire) actually work that really scares twits like Will.
Wingnuts are used to speaking without thinking and not being called on it It's un-american to ever question a wingnuts statements
I thought being a greeter at Crapmart was part of retirment in the US.
Oh, and....that "increasingly long and comfortable retirement" he talks about. What's he mean by that? Increasingly long often negates increasingly comfortable for people, especially when Social Security doesn't always pay the bills, and it's increasingly difficult to get the proper health care one needs as one gets older.
Yeah. George Will is a twit.
If I got paid an outlandish fee for bloviating 7 days a week about things I know little of, I too would never retire. And I might even look askance at anyone who retired before 70.
Ah the long, long, long list of things George Will knows nothing about but talks about anyway.
Gee the country didn't mind taking the taxes from those seniors for almost 50 years. How come. Give it back.
wait, didnt they Pay for the coverage?
Yeah, those lazy octogenarians, you could put them in a wheelchair and put in the entryway of a Walmart. All they would have to is raise their hand and wave. That paycheck would be enough for cat food and a cardboard box in the alley. Whiners.
How about getting rid of these children who draw SSI for things like ADHD and other crap?
Andotech @ 13:
I can assume, since you hate old people, that you don't plan to live long enough to get "old?"
These right wing snakes of America will be the death and destruction of America as we know it was and what she could become, which is a hope & light of free people everywhere.
"Truly Free"
I hate to be that guy, but I agree with Will, but not in such a mean way. I'm going to get alot of shit for this, but it needs to be said.
Let's face it, Will has a point. Social Security was created in a time when people couldn't be expected to live more than five years after their retirement, and a good chunk of people would never get to that age in the first place.
Since then we have seen historic demographic changes in the population- people aren't dying of infectious diseases the way they were in the 30s. As much as our healthcare system sucks, lets face it, even with all the debt it incurs- cancer isn't a death sentence any more, nor is influenza. Chronic, debilitating diseases are the problem, not swift killers.
So we are faced with the wrost of all worlds- people are still retiring at 65, and are still no more able to work at 65 than they were in 1936, but they can be expected to live a decade, or more, longer. That, and the current crop of workers does not outnumber their parents like they used to. So we are facing a major financial hardship, though not an immediate problem, the long-term effects of deficit spending and longer lifespans (and more effective, and expensive, medical care) will only make the problem worse.
How do we deal with that? The first option is to widen the base, and increase taxes. Or both- but Will's point still stands, and being an insensitive ass does not negate his logic. The baby boomers can be expected to live well into their eighties on average, and while Will is exaggerating, it's true. We need to think about how long people are supposed to live on social security, and how long the system is designed to support them.
I'm not particularly worried, for a much more macabre reason. I don't think the baby boomers, who don't have secure pensions in the numbers their parents did, and have to rely on 401(k)s most are not qualified to manage, will probably not be able to afford to retire at 65 anyway.
Karen @ 21:
Oops. I did some math wrong. Since Will was talking about receiving Social Security for one-third of one's adult life, one would only have to live to age 84, not 93. (Which makes it all the more plausible.)
If one begins receiving Social Security at age 62, and reaches age 84, she will have received Social Security for 22 years. An 84-year-old has spent 66 years as an adult (84 - 18). 22 * 3 = 66, so 22 years is one-third of an 84-year-old's adult life.
So, folks receiving Social Security from age 62 onward will receive it for 1/3 to 1/2 of their adult lives if they live anywhere between 84 and 106 years.
Not implausible.
And George Will is still a twit.
I think we should incorporate into how much a senior gets in SS with whether or not they surrender their driver's liscences.
Those of wealth just don't get it. And george will is one of them. How can they be so fucking stupid? "Compassionate conservatives" my ass!
People PAY INTO the SS system during each of their working years, and what they get out of it is, in most cases, far less than they put in over the years. It is not a handout - in any sense of the word - for the vast, vast majority of people who get it. Those who don't have to count pennies after they retire just do not understand the realities of trying to live on a fixed income that may not allow one to make ends meet.
Sorry Will, I've worked and paid in to Social Security since I was 16. When I say I worked I mean I worked, not sitting around like yourself and flapping my gums (or my typing fingers) thinking it was work. It must be tough to be so arrogant and pretentious while you're claiming to be a human being.
But then the elite depends on running their work force in to the ground don't they. People like Will are still upset about child labor laws, a 40 hour work week, and god forbid maybe 2 weeks of vacation a year.
Imagine if George Bush, or any of the Bush children and grandchildren, actually had to work to survive. Actually I'd pay to see that and laugh my ass of as George W., Jeb, or Neil attempted manual labor of any kind. By manual labor I don't mean photo-op brush clearing sessions on Chimpy's brush farm either.
Too bad all those other seniors can't make a living from nothing more than being a pompous public @$$ like George Will. There's only so much corporate funded affirmative action for Conservative blowhards to go around.
Karen @ 33:
Examples? Links?
Ha! Just kidding. Agreed. This particular 30-something doesn't even count on any SS. Between how Bush has screwed up the world, the food that I shove down my pizza hole, and my genetic disposition to diabetes and depression ... I'm spending everything I can now.
fedup @ 30:
You should have kept on reading for content after the part that you didn't find funny.
Glinda @ 25:
Exactly. If gasbags like Will and the rest of the punditry had their livelihoods threatened maybe they'd think differently. The economic punditry, save for Krugman, is especially bad. Would they have a different perspective if Robert Samuelson of Newsweek, James Glassman, the nutcases at the WSJ editorial page, etc, were replaced with Indian or Chinese econopundits at 1/10 the salary? How about outsourcing their cushy "jobs" to Mexico? No doubt there are educated individuals in those countries who could achieve a below 50% forecast accuracy.
fedup @ 30:
The sooner the better to rid America of these vile ignorant freaks. Who in thier right mind would say they hate old people, or any people?
abarts @ 17:
Look on the bright side, maybe that means you will live to be 134.
Oh, i forgot about Global Warming.
Nevermind.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 8:
Me? OW! I am 65. I get $254 a month because I stayed home to raise my kids - which these batshit fuckers want us womenfolk to do, isn't it?
I have other income, but the point is, how the fuck does this tapdancing fairy think I am dipping into his pockets? Not that I would find anything except two raisins and a dried up parsnip.
He can go fuck himself and the mensroom attendant he rode in on.
Just love how millionaires like George Will bash people who get retirement money that they paid in themselves from working for years for wages. Another repug twerp.
George Will will still be sucking from the corporate teat long after senility sets in. Oh wait, he is!
motorfingaz @ 41:
So sad, some people have no sense of humor! It's a joke, guys, a joke.
To crib from Lenin: "Reality supports what George Will says the way a rope supports a hanged man." Oh for the good old days when the reactionaries had a date with the nearest lamppost.
I will point out, after wading through Will's class bigotry and sheer bitchiness, that he is well-read enough to be referring to future projections of lifespan. Scientific papers estimating that humans will be commonly living to 120 or more by the end of this century pop up in the news from time to time.
Of course, they assume everyone has equal access to a sound diet and quality health care, and a lot of Americans are gradually losing out on one or both of those.
So, Will is basically falling back on the root emotional postulate of American Conservatism: if people are poor (or just not rich) in America it is because they are lazy and shiftless. Get any true conservative talking about poverty, welfare, entitlement programs, etc., and they eventually will spit that one out.
Banner title "Obama attacks".
For the LOVE OF GAWD can we please stop using the word "attack" as a substitute for any of 1000 words that could better be used to describe the situation? Am I the only one that thinks of "attack" as a strongly negative word associated with physical force?
"Charlie says he is allergic to flowers and can't have them in the house." Lets see, what would be the appropriate heading for that sensational story? But of course..."Charlie attacks flowers." That's the only one that just makes sense.
Midland @ 48:
I would like to point out that we were all supposed to be driving flying cars by now (i am very thankful we are not.) These projections are worthless because it assumes continued progress in medicine and environment. We are losing our honey bees. That may sound tangental but without them our food won't get polinated. A lot can go wrong (is going wrong) to stop an average lifespan from ever seeing the light of day.
*"stop an average lifespan of 120 from ever seeing the light of day."
Surely you jest, jwf!
George Will could never be replaced by an outsourced pundit! Who could replace that incisive mind? That saucy wit? That attention to detail? Those Brad Pitt-like looks?
[ / snark ]
I could randomly pick any NYC or DC taxi driver, put him in Georgie's chair , and we might actually hear something worth thinking about. George's time is long gone. Retire him, please! If he won't go quietly of his own volition.
Geroge Will could never be replaced jwf @ 40:
We should start taxing any income of over 2 million at a 90% rate; and trust funds like Dubya's at a 99.9% rate - after the first five million. It would solve most of our economic problems.
And despite the fact that these GOP jerks would still be multi-millionaires and never have to work a day in their lives, could you imagine the outrage of these egocentric republican scumbags.
Yet, they don't blink an eye when they steal the public treasury, and then tell Grandma that she needs to work until she's 85 in order to save social security. Sorry Granny, no free rides here on the GOP express, unless of course your one of the top 5% of riches americans, or a Bush Crony. Then theirs all kinds of "socialism" available to you.
Social Security was never intended to be a pension. Its age of eligibility was the life expectancy when the program was created. FDR didn't have some grand vision to subsidize long, comfortable retirements. He just wanted to make sure old folks who lived unusually long lives didn't wind up on the street. Don't sell Social Security for something it isn't, and don't try to turn it into what it was never supposed to be.
Will's comments really weren't that ridiculous.
Glinda@52 - Word.
I'm receiving social security. I earned it!!! Does Will feel that he should not get any return on his investments? After all, that's what SS is!
If you get a chance to speak to him, tell him Dave said "Bite me, George!"
While projections of massively increased life spans may play out in Europe (due to better work ethic, education and health care) I don't think the US is going to be seeing any of that this century.
So old man George has nothing to worry about, Americans will continue to die before their times and will keep the profits rolling in to the end for quite some time to come.
ozwaldo @ 54:
Long Comfortable retirements?
Are you aware that the minimum Social Security check is $113 a month?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The reason so many retire to such a poor income at 65 is because agism really exists.
You will NOT get hired at age 64. My parents are over the limit. And still working very hard -- harder than they should be. Because they know that the second they loose those jobs, NOBODY will hire them. Simply based on their age.
Build a better economy, the problem takes care of itself. George Will's "let them eat cake" is a cover for the complete disaster of his boy Bush's economy.
Of course those extended lifespans will be limited to the wealthy elite who have unlimited access to expensive discretionary high tech health care. Is Will making an argument for euthanising the rich?
Snowball @ 60:
It's a start.
Oh my... where to begin?
For someone with the dour countenance of a bean counter, Will can't count for beans. Social Security ran surplus after surplus for more years than he has lived, collecting more in premiums than it paid out, and continues to do so to this very day. Will and his ilk never once complained. They habitually stole that surplus to fund deadly adventures such as the Vietnam War in the 60's and 70's, and Congress finally insisted (in the 80's) that symbolic IOU treasury bonds be written and stuck in a drawer somewhere, to represent the surplus that is accumulating. The combination of the baby boomer population bulge and the pilfering that took place years ago, when SS premiums were immorally stolen by merging them into the general account of the U.S., will lead to the IOUs becoming exhausted eventually -- in 2045 or so. Is THAT what Will is so freaking worried about -- while not being even a trifle concerned about the estimated $2,400,000,000,000 cost of the Iraq debacle?! Please George Will, spare us your faux fiscal responsibility crocodile tears!
Will can't count for beans... and the fact that he can spin his tale on TV, unchallenged, is yet another indictment of our mainstream media.
Bob in PA @ 62:
Please think about running for congress.
What kind of math do they teach in American elementary schools? Intelligent design math?
In Germany we do the math that way:
62 - 18 = 44
44 / 2 = 22
44 / 3 = 14,666666666666666666666666666667, okay, let´s say 15
62 + 22 = 84 (half the ADULT lifetime)
62 + 15 = 77 (a third of the ADULT lifetime)
I´ve got no idea who this Will character is. He might be a perfect nutcase. But the math each of you did in this threat (at least until now) is a shame for the American education system. Superior leaders of the world my ass.
I would like all progessives to take note. I am a carpenter that has sold my trade for 37 years. When I met my wife she had a 13 year old son (she was widowed when the child was 5). She was raising her son on her deceased husband's SS (widowed at age 25, her husband died a horrible death at age 28 from liver cancer). When Reagan and Congress looked for a solution to the underfunding of SS, there fix was to reduce benefits to widowed mothers (a reduction of 50% of monthly income) from the time the child reached the age of 18 (or graduation from high school), to the age of 16, no matter if the child was in school or not. Ths mother had a hard chose as a widow. Stay home with the child, live on 50% of the budgeted income she had planned her home around, or go back into the work force and leave your child. Most conservatives say that the family unit is the answer to all the ills in society. That fix did not work. That fix was easy. The hard fix would be to raise the maximum income withholding on high earners. High earners vote and contribute to campaigns. Widows try to feed their children. I married that fine woman and took that child to be my son. I did what I thought was right. When I retire, I want the government to do right. Be a man. Commentments mean something. The real third rail of politics is the insulation of the invester class from their real responsiblity.
Jo @ 63:
No! Please don't!
We need good honest uncompromised people in this country.
The road to Congress is paved with good intentions.
Will is another one in the legion of draft dodging republican chickenhawks. He served his country nobly with his Vietnam deferment.
While Georgie Boy may have a great fondness for baseball, some have suggested that along the way he may have developed a "limp wrist". Could this have come from throwing too many curve balls?
nochickenhawk @ 67:
Irrelevent and inflamatory.
Forget about how these idiots frame the debate. They cannot tell the American people the truth.
The simple fact is is that Social Security MUST EVENTUALLY stop. For we cannot afford it. It places enormous pressure on a country to economically progress, which must occur for everybody's standard of living to not only increase but to stay the same whatever.
Now before anyone gets into a tizzy and say that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on the war, so why not spend some on old people, please think a little more about it.
This latter knee-jerk reaction completely ignores the fact that we cannot afford the war AS WELL. The war is also placing enormous pressure on this country to compete world wide and thus increase or maintain our standard of living.
In other words, we MUST stop both the war AND Social Security, but they must be stopped differently.
The war can be stopped immediately and no harm will be done. In fact, it will give immediate benefits, for both the soldiers, their families, and the rest of the economy's participants like wage earners, business in general, and other social systems.
Social Security on the other hand must be phased out slowly over time, by making the age to qualify for it later and later and later. We cannot stop Social Security right away like the war for that would place undue harm on those who have become dependent on it. These older folks should not have to suffer because they became ensnared into a program in which they were told was permanent but later was found to be unsustainable. If only the government listened to smart and free market economists decades ago would this program never have been started in the first place, because it creates a HUGE dependent nation of old people that MUST one day stop because social security is not sustainable.
The best way to handle Social Security?
1. Stop the War. Bring ALL the troops home from the world's countries immediately. That would save $3 billion dollars a day, or more.
2. Stop Corporatism, which lowers productivity by denying true and honest business from competing fairly. If they could compete honestly, they would immediately start to raise the productivity of labour by introducing new production methods, which would raise real wages by lowering prices. Stop ALL government economic regulation that doesn't include fraud, theft, or other initiations of force in the economy. The only way for a country to progress is for us to be able to without the problems fascist government like Bush (and soon Hillary) create. Most importantly, STOP THE FED COMPLETELY. It is they who are destroying the value of the dollar, and will continue to do so until the dollar is done. A devaluing dollar makes it harder and harder for people to save a portion of their incomes, because prices rise all the time due to the devalued currency.
3. Tell the country that in 30 years, the last Social Security check will be mailed to everyone. Make it a plan that over the next 30 years, the age in order to qualify for old age will increase by one year every year until 30 years time. Then no more payments. That would make those over 92 years old STILL qualify for Social Security, an age that few live to be and hence wouldn't be a significant drain on the economy. This means that someone who is 32 years old TODAY would not be able to collect a single Social Security payment in their life. But 30 years is more than enough time to adjust one's spending habits to provide for one's own retirment. Someone who is 33 years old will be able to collect one years worth, 34 years old can collect 2 years worth, and so one. Reassess in 20 years to see if it still makes economic sense. It probably will if we had open markets for everyone to compete in freely and by requiring no permission.
4. By making the age increase one year every year, you will obviously have, each year, more and more people, 63 years old, 64 years old, 65 years old, etc who used to be able to collect but can no longer collect until they are 66, 67, 68, 69, etc, say (after 4 or more years of increasing the year to qualify as an example), then this would obviously cause an increase in the numbers of people who can collect.
But this gradual phase out would cause people to save MORE of their income. Since the economy is free (or freer), then prices would be lower and lower every year (as both the result of the extra invesment and by the rise in productivity such investments result in) so that the lost income due to the denial of Social Security would be more than made up by the rise in the value of the dollar and goods prices, and hence the little (or more) savings that people would make in the face of no more Social Security will be able to provide for day to day living for those years.
Does this sound good? It is already clear that Social Security, even though it started as a good INTENTION, clearly makes no economic sense and it cannot possible be sustained without making the economy so bad that even if one did retain it, it wouldn't be able to buy jack squat.
Slaw @ 39:
You've read it, and I read all I needed to read. Wasn't funny.
Why make it so complicated? Why not just shoot people who retire? The end result will be the same.
xoites defends Constitution @ 71:
Because I don't like killing people as you apparently do.
Wag @ 72:
Cut off people's retirement income and you expect them to live on air?
Libertarian alert! Libertarian alert!
ASD in the building! ASD in the building!
nochickenhawk @ 67:
Hey, go easy on Georgie Will. He wrote a column about a miltary matter a few years back with the closing line being the historical quote: "You might not be ready for war but war will be ready for you". During Vietnam, Will was ready for his war by hiding under his desk at Princeton with his student deferrment, learning multi-syllabic words in order to impress William F. Buckley. A true armchair patriot.
jwf @ 75:
Multi-syllabic words that he is still unable to string together into a coherant thought/
"Social Security was the first real defeat I can remember..."
I don't think so. Bush had a direct attack on Social Security which was foiled, but the back door approach was to run up the deficits to the point that Social Security can't be repaid for the money it is owed. The economy we are experiencing today relies on borrowing from future generations, and from Social Security. Between these IOUs, and the off-shoring of middle class jobs, there won't be enough money to keep everything going. The Republican blueprint then calls for making Social Security needs based, eliminating it as old age insurance. This will divide recipients from non-recipients, sapping support for Social Security. Divide and conquer. Meanwhile, enact national consumption taxes, so those recipients are taxed on any thing they buy. That's where I see it going. Best defense against that was a balanced federal budget.
Does this sound good? It is already clear that Social Security, even though it started as a good INTENTION, clearly makes no economic sense and it cannot possible be sustained without making the economy so bad that even if one did retain it, it wouldn’t be able to buy jack squat.
The actual math of it, per almost any academic source I've read over the last few years, is that the system itself is solvent for decades ahead and will be clear of its solvency crisis with only a small extra surge of money. The real problem is the rest of the government. The SS fund is not "empty," it is full of the same IOUs--government bonds--that anchor our banking system and investment funds and accounts. As long as the United States remains a sovereign nation capable of paying its bills. Social Security is just as well funded as the Federal Reserve, the defense budget, and every bank on Wall Street. If the economy or political system collapses to the point where all that infrastructure is threatened, getting your social security check is going to be the least of your problems. In fact, it is designed well enough that it might be the last part of the system to fail.
ozwaldo @ 54:
Actually, they were!
And by the way, according to government data, 12% of elderly americans live in poverty. That number would be 48% if not for Social Security.
The only problem with Social Security, is that Bush, (and the rest of his GOP parasites) haven't been able to come up with a way to steal it for their criminal friends on Wallstreet. Been driving the greedheads nuts for decades. They just can't come up with the proper bait & switch to get americans to eat their "privatization" suicide pill -and it's killing them.
I really think George Will's "solution" would be to march insolvent retirees off to the labor camps where they can make glue out of insovent retirees too old to work in the camps anymore.
Wag @ 72:
Unfortunately, that is what you would be doing. The only reason Social Security exists is because our political leaders back in the 30's realized that the solution you describe was in effect and it was not working. Millions of poor working people and middle-class citizens struck by bad luck and hard times were either starving or living on the edge of starvation. No amount of "adjusting ones spending habits" does you any good when you are living week to week on subsistence wages or have seen all your prudently gathered savings wiped out by a medical catastrophe or a national business panic.
NoBuddy @ 77:
I fear you have predicted the future, NoBuddy. Biggest mistake Dems ever made: Failure to embrace (or even champion) a Balanced Budget Amendment. Had it been enacted it would have guaranteed solvency of existing programs, and ensured that those who sell War to the American people would also have to sell a hefty tax increase to pay for it.
Yes OK, I'll stop dreaming.
I don't get it. When Bush talks about his "style", is he referring to the codpiece? The boots? The fake accent? I don't get it.
xoites defends Constitution @ 73:
No you simpleton, I am suggesting a way for people to be able to have enough time to save and invest starting today, so that when they do retire they can live independently. Of course not EVERYONE will be able to (which is a consequence of hampered markets to begin with), but these people have families, friends, there is charity, there is voluntary help. There is no reason to believe (except if you are a savage) that NOT having Social Security will result in old people dropping dead on the streets. You want proof? Social Security has not been around forever you know, it started in the early 20th century. Before then, people DID take care of each other. You know how to do that? Do you know how to take care of your family right? People can do it if they try. The reason why it sounds so scary is today is because our economy has been hijacked by socialists and fascists who have made the life of the average Joe much worse than it was 20 years ago.
People's standard of living is NOT the same as it was 20 years ago, it is LOWER. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have this occur with totally open markets, because totally open markets have lower prices EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Over a 30 year span, prices would, in an open economy, lower by around 2 or 3% per year, which was occurring during the industrial revolution, when markets were open. In 30 years, at 2.5% per year drop in prices, that's a 53% drop in prices. That means that what used to cost $1 today would cost only 47 cents in 30 years! Imagine new cars instead of costing $20,000 would cost less than $10,000 or new homes that now go for $250,000 to cost $120,000 or $250 a month on groceries to cost $120 instead.
This is what is optimal, and that is only what would happen in 30 years. Imagine in 40, 50 or 60 years. Imagine how low prices WOULD have been had the US economy been totally open since the end of the WW2. That's 60 years. 60 years at 2.5% drop every year is, ready?
78 friggin percent drop!!
That means that a home that used to cost $20,000 around WW2 would be able to be purchased for $4,400 today. Imagine that? A new home for $4,400!! That's what open markets would do my friend.
I am trying to help people, not harm them for political purposes.
Try to imagine other things dropping in price by 78% since WW2 and you will see the plain answer is open markets. THAT is how to deal with old people.
Marcus Aurelius @ 83:
"heh heh heh"
Because October 29 somehow became the unofficial "Get Obama Day" on the netroots, I'm glad you instead chose to focus on George Will (Lie). Unfortunately George Will (Mislead) is just too distasteful a target, and it becomes tiresome (though amazingly easy) to consistently vary his third name.
For the record, Obama did not state or even imply that Social Security was in any danger, nor was he adopting some Republican stance on privatization. But somehow this completely B.S. meme has been circulating the netroots all day. That is not what happened.
Clinton was asked her stance on Social Security by a teacher from Iowa; in typical Hillary fashion she would not give him a straight answer. Obama said people deserved a straight answer and said he would increase the cap on SS taxation. A perfectly legitimate, progressive response from Obama which leaves HRC looking rather foolish and non-committal. He also said: "The underlying system is sound. The actual problem is a projected cash shortfall that can be readily solved. But the longer we wait to solve the problem, the bigger it grows." Check out the AP story.
But then the Clinton War Room and the Washington Post get involved. In an article Sunday, this exchange is turned into a "character" attack on poor HRC. In the netroots (and with Krugman above), it has somehow morphed into Obama spouting right-wing talking points against poor progressive Hillary.
Just because you have a complicated plan that will not work does not make me a simplton.
The stock market produces nothing. It is a big gambling casino where the card dealers make all the money. It does not make automobiles or soap. It creates wealth for the lucky and the dishonest inside trader. It is a house of cards. I do not choose to play and refused to be forced to.
the 4th Reich is rising @ 64:
Um.....er......uh......no. I have no problem admitting that America is hardly the world's bastion of education. We speak one language, and we speak it poorly. As for math and science, hell, some folks here still think the earth is flat, and we're on the verge of making 2 + 2 equal 5.
But your math isn't correct.
Merely dividing 44 by 2 and then 3 does not itself give you the number to add to 62.
A person who BEGINS receiving Social Security at 62, and dies at 84 will have received Social Security for 22 years. However, her adult life will have lasted for 66 years. (84 minus 18 equals 66.) In order to determine the fraction of her adult life for which she has received Social Security, you have to divide 22 by 66. 22 years out of 66 years is 1/3 of the years. So a person who begins receiving Social Security at age 62, and dies at age 84 will have received Social Security for 1/3 of her adult life, not 1/2 of her adult life.
A person who begins receiving Social Security at 62, and dies at 77 will have received Social Security for 15 years. Her adult life will have lasted 59 years (77 - 18). 15 years out of 59 years is roughly 1/4, not 1/3. So someone who begins receiving SS at 62, and dies at 77, will have received SS for roughly one-fourth of her life.
So kindly take your insults about American stupidity, and multiply them by zero.
xoites defends Constitution @ 76:
Big words distract people from faulty reasoning.
Interesting thing about most of the political blogs - they don't really focus on the economy much, unless it's Social Security or healthcare.
Well we're in really bad shape fiscally and economically. Really bad. We're fixin' to learn a lesson or two about greed, credit, cheatin' and stealin'. When this happens (and I assure you it is imminent), the last thing on our minds will be the topics of Social Security and healthcare (or things like primary and college education for the average citizen). The next President had beter be ready to provide some affordable food, clothing, and shelter. Then, they'll need to bone up on the CCC and WPA - we're going to need some work programs. The New Boss will NOT be the same as the old Boss. The New Boss might not even be an American.
89 Karen
Very nice. :)
Marcus Aurelius @ 91:
Roman?
xoites defends Constitution @ 93:
No, he'll be a Simpleton.
I'm so sick of candidates trying to show they're serious to Broder and Hiatt
Yes! You?
Actually, could be Chinese (and we're worried about an Islamic religious revolution - Jeeeeeesus).
Last post was in reply to xoites.
#94, Wag: You aiming at me?
Marcus Aurelius @ 97:
Wag is determined to piss somebody off tonight. LOL
Marcus Aurelius @ 97:
No, of course not. You haven't said anything retarded. I was calling the New Boss Simpleton.
Bob In Pai Thailand @ 19:
I live on SSD, I'm disabled. I get not $1500 a month, but rather $930.
I'm not recommending it. Stay abled if you can. Not much of a living in disabled.
42 years old and sometimes its tough to find anything in my future to look forward to.
and now of course you have me daydreaming of how nice it would be to get that $1500 a month.
Wow, KEEP IT UP WILL!!!
There are going to be more and more seniors, and with comments like this, less and less of them will be supportive of republicans who tow the GEORGE WILL line!
Karen @ 89:
This entire conversation is riotous! But I do believe it would be OK for the German to multiply the insults by 1 or 2. They are overall well founded if not exactly well founded from this thread with regards to the above math discussion.
Wag @ 84:
Actually, lots of them did. Do you know anything about history? People died younger then. They worked when they were sick and old because they had no choice. They worked until they died, and often they died younger because of that. And many who couldn't work were in for a horrible existence.
Those that had families that could help them were lucky. Were the families lucky? Do YOU want to have to not only support financially two aged parents, but have them live in your home, needing your care? Do you have a spouse or kids who can afford to stay at home with them?
People had experiences like my great-grandmother, who lived close to her 90s but had dementia for the last decade or more of her life. My family wasn't destitute, they were about the same as every other farming family in the country, meaning they couldn't care for her.
She got to spend her last decade or so in a state mental hospital, the only place that would take people unable to pay. A prison would have been more appealing. My grandma, her daughter, feared that she would have the same fate.
Grandma did get dementia. She didn't live as many years with it as her mom did, though. For a good 15 years as she gradually deteriorated she stayed in her home and felt independent, allaying her fears of her mother's fate. Her huge brood of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who lived within walking distance checked on her and helped her, but she got to feel independent. Social Security provided that. When they finally were unable to handle it either, she was placed in a nursing home... not a wonderful fate, but much better than her mother's.
Social Security provided that too.
This is a short and to the point post at Huffington Post on SS and the Obama ad. It is worth a read. There would be nothing wrong with SS Except the RAIDING of the fund by each president since Reganomics changed the way it is calculated. I repeat, nothing was wrong until Regan, the greedy bastard, couldn't stand all those accumulating $$.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/obamas-new-ad-could-help_b_70...
craig @ 100:
Folks, saying, "I hate old people as much as the next guy" is a joke. Andotech does not hate old people.
Imagine Bill Maher scolding child slave labor by saying, "New Rule: No More Child Slaves. Now, I hate pesky rug-rats as much as anyone, but I don't want the ones who exist to be enslaved . . . " and then proceeding to document some horrors.
Andotech might not be funny, but he is indeed kidding. (I actually did think it was funny. ;) )
Social Security can NEVER go bankrupt as long as payroll taxes are collected. Money in, money out.
So, of course, the culture of corruption and deceit Republican Party is doing everything it can to disrupt payroll tax collections.
At present, these insidious Republican attacks are twofold: 1) divert a portion of payroll taxes collected into privatized accounts and 2) promote consumption tax schemes called Fair Tax or Flat Tax.
Both of these devilish Republican schemes are meant to undo the New Deal programs that have benefited millions of U.S. citizens over the past seventy years, old and young, rich and poor, healthy and disabled.
If these morality-challenged, profit-hungry, selfish Republicans get their way, America will be plunged into a Third World nation, a banana republic, created by a bunch of insane Banana Republicans, who are doing everything they can think of doing to destroy America's middle class.
And this is what George Will is promoting, using insidious culture of corruption Republican lies and spin, to try to fool American citizens into voting for conservative Republican and conservative Democratic candidates who will literally end up screwing their neighbors, and their neighbor's children's futures.
I'm not fooled.
While there is a slight disincentive to take SS early, there is not much incentive to wait and build up social security past 65 either. People who work longer should be compensated accordingly becuase they continue to pay into the system past 65. Anyway, a broader point is being missed here. Retirement is not the problem. It's the enormous medical costs associated with the last years of people's lives - medicare is what threatens to bankrupt the government. People who live unhealthy lives tend to have expensive and unpleasant final years. A large percentage of the population is now obese and their decline will be expensive. Retirement money that perhaps would filter through to younger generations (through inheritances, etc.) instead gets tied up in our enourmously wasteful medical system.
craig @ 104:
"...Do you know anything about history?"
A little.
"People died younger then."
That was not because of the particular politicalor economic system that was in place. That was due to the centuries of feudalism which prevented people from advancing and accumulating wealth.
"They worked when they were sick and old because they had no choice. They worked until they died, and often they died younger because of that. And many who couldn't work were in for a horrible existence."
This was true because at that time, the productivity of labour was so low that people HAD to work that much in order to gain food, shelter and clothing. At that time, a man worked 70 hour weeks using relatively primitive equipment. Today, because we had somewhat open markets since then, what one man can produce in 80 hours is VASTLY greater than in the industrial revolution. Equivalently, people today do not have to work as long in order to produce what people back then produced in 70 hours. With modern machinery, man can now work perhaps only one hour or less in order to produce the same amount of goods.
So you cannot compare then with now and say that if markets were open again, that everyone would revert to working 70 hour weeks and until they are old. For we have accumulated enough capital machinery and wealth such that we will never move BACKWARDS, only FORWARD. For open markets provide increasing standards of living every year, and people have to work less and less every year to maintain their standard of living. It wouldn't be very surprising that in a few generations, people would one day only have to work 10 hours in a week in order to produce enough stuff for humanity. The reason why we would only have to work that little is because by having open markets open and for long enough, wealth will accumulate to such an extent that the average worker will be in charge of equipment the size of apartment buildings creating houses, food, and all the rest that 10 hours a week can create, for it would only take 10 hours to produce as much stuff as a regular working week of 40 hours does today.
Can't you see that we are working less today NOT because of laws and other restrictions, but because we are so productive compared to then?
For me, a 10 hour work week would be ideal. That would leave sooooo much more time available for family, friends, entertainment, travelling, education, learning the arts, spiritual endeavours.
The reason why we are working 40 hours a week and have hardly anything to show for it is because our rate of economic progress has been stifled by socialists and fascists in our society. Wealth redistribution, taxes, business monopolies, wage controls, public education...all these things have halted the accumulation of capital in this country. The mistake is that people think that money in the hands of simpletons is beneficial to everyone. It is not. The more money is voluntarily given to the most productive people by satisfying consumers, the better off WE ALL ARE. But people are f$%ked up nowadays because they have been corrupted by fallacious and contradictory philosophies. I am sure that everyone can agree that the new crop of youngsters growing up in this country are dumber then doorknobs.
Abd the SS debate rages on!
Most likely, you're never going to get your SS, and if you do, it will be in dollars that are counted in the millions, due to devaluation. It doesn't matter that people are living longer - we have leveraged our future and the bill is being collected. In the very near future, we'll be too preoccupied worrying about our own hand-to-mouth survival - no matter what our age - to worry about what will happen next week, much less next year or decade.
Your conversation is pointless. Visit some econ blogs, and you'll see what I'm sayin'.
The Oracle @ 107:
Yes you are fooled Oracle.
If you call yourself the Oracle, you should have seen how this country is ending up.
Money in money out eh?
That's all fine and dandy except you never said anything about what prices are doing. Money in money out...do you really think it's that easy? What if money in money out is only able to buy a Popsicle and a TV?
xoites defends Constitution @ 88:
The difference is of course that in the stock market, anyone can become a card dealer :). Ironically you would do well in the stock market because you see it for what it really is. I'll concede though that the stock market needs a lot of suckers, hence the push to privatize SS.
Marcus Aurelius @ 110:
You got it.
People must educate themselves. If people stay ignorant by choice, because it is too difficult or too time consuming, then they have NO EXCUSE for how badly things will go for themselves.
The key is what Al Gore said "put a lock box on it". There are so many IOU"S in that fund that are never going to get paid, not now, not ever.
Wag @ 112:
Really?
What's your excuse?
Social Security is not a problem, Medicare is, and Medicare will be fixed when we get single payer health care just like.....you guessed it! The rest of the industrialized world. Obama is an idiot for bringing this issue up. Hell even Republicans were pissed at Bush in 2005 when he talked about privatizing it.
xoites defends Constitution @ 115:
Having to spend an inordinate amount of time putting up with old people and their stubborn, self-righteous ways.
I'm sure it's been pointed out, but do the actual math of what George Will is saying:
"Most Americans who collect Social Security begin to collect it at age 62, which is absurd. We have the public subsidizing increasingly long and comfortable retirement of people [to age 82 or 124]."
George Will wants us to trust his math on social security?
Notice how he pounded the desk when he said it? Maybe people should not be doing math in their heads while they are angry... ANGRY I SAY... about money being taken from the rich and given to old people.
argentina here i come doo dee doo de hmmmmmhmmm...
if the exchange rate don't make me a bummmmmmm!
argentina here i come.
Will went a bit overboard with his fuzzy math regarding people collecting SS for "a third to a half of their lives." Nevertheless, when SS was established, the average life expectancy wasn't much more than 62. Now it's a lot higher, and rises a bit more nearly every year. Many people, especially ones who do not have a mandatory retirement age, are also retiring later. Therefore, I agree with one of the points that Will made or at least implied, i.e., that the age at which people can start collecting SS benefits should be raised to reflect this reality. Although the AARP might oppose such a step, it seems to me a fair, logical and non-partisan way to help keep Social Security financially sound.
Yes Senator Obama does see a problem with Social Security as he duly noted the President and his merry gang of thugs needs to keep his dame hands out of the pot and stop borrowing and not replacing it like Bush has done.
Senator Obama duly noted in his last speech that Social Security is one of the most successful Federal Programs of all times and he is so right to say that.
If Speaker Nancy Pelosi would shut down the funds that continue to fund the criminal activity of this administration. We could began to clean this country up from the stench of this administration. We have complained about the damage Bush can do if we continue to fund his war for the last three years and it just falls on deft ears.
The bastard is filling the system up with all these criminals, posing as judges and why this ass hole should even be considered for the job of Attorney General is beyond the pale, yet they will entertain a hearing to discuss putting another crook in office.
It just makes you sick to see this shit.
George Will, I guess he's a good example of the early onset of geriatric dementia. He is 66 and I would really like to see the copies of the checks he returned to SS for the last 4 years. It is possible that Georgy differred his payments until he gets even more decrepit, but regardless of how much money this right wing muppet makes, he will still receive his SS checks every month. Even if Will kicks the bucket early, his wife Mari will continue to collect his portion.
Personally I agree with George, the old should be put on icebergs and allowed to float into the ocean when they can no longer hunt or bare children. Oops, wrong century, we don't have enough icebergs thanks to global warming.
Another thing that George Won't either doesn't realize, or refuses to acknowledge is that some of us don't sit in a cushy office all day and punch a keyboard... If you work at a physically demanding job in all kinds of weather for 30-35 years as I have (my god, an oldster amoung you) it's all you can do to drag your broken body to the finish line at 62 y/o. There is a reason my union allows someone to retire at age 55 if they have enough hours accumulated--by age 55 your body is about spent. I've been lucky enough to remain mostly healthy, but these last ten years make it obvious to me that anyone who thinks someone who does physical work will last beyond 65 is dreaming, most likely at a desk.
I'm rambling but I should mention one more thing. If you work in a office or at some other white collar job and think you have trouble getting hired once you reach 50, imagine trying to compete with some young buck just out of apprenticeship.
Please don't misconstrue these comments, I feel fortunate to work in a trade I truly love; I'm just trying to present a different perspective.
H/T to Murphan @ 65.
Once again, all the Republicans can do is try to destroy everything that Franklin Roosevelt ever did. Social Security works. "Entitlements" is a word that people like George Will throw around. I wish that Will would get out of my sunlight and our entire existence. So much for being our brother's keeper. We should just throw the old brothers and sisters away because they take our space,money, and air. This is a great lesson to teach our children. Afterall, we are all getting older every day.
Media Concepts @ 120:
Then I suggest they raise the age limit on you (and all like minded individuals) to 90. The rest of us will take our Social Security at 62 or 65. Personally, I don't want to be working until I have one foot in the grave, simply because people like you are morons.
Will sits on his ass spewing inanities insisting that older Americans are spoiled and lazy.
What of the guy pushing, say, concrete for 30+ years or the guy pounding nails?
Forget the fact that working Americans have paid forward for a
few years of rest at the end of their work lives? Will is elitist scum.
...
I'm seriously questioning Obamma's judgment. Sorry, but I don't trust the "top 3".
A lot of older people complain about being tired, and I for one, am sick of it, I tell ya. I think if they hired guards, with electric cattle prods, they could get a bit more work out of them. I tased my 119-year-old grandmother and she got peelin' potatoes mighty quick. Imagine she coulda been sittin' around half her life on Social Security. No slacking in America. Say NO to free lunches.
I'm 32 and I say gimme back everything I put into SS now, because I know the government already spent it anyway. People are waking up to the fact that all we're paying with our taxes is interest on money the congress spends. Banks like CitiBank and Chase are STEALING FROM YOU. Demand your money back - IN GOLD!
Can you READ?
He said "for a third to a half of their adult lifetime," not half their lives.
Guy is an idiot enough without you giving him ammunition by misquoting him.
A little less shrill, Jon.
Oops.
I meant Nicole.
kaT @ 46:
That was obvious. Makes me wonder about the intelligence of some of the posters.
Has study been done to find out how many people die between the ages of 62 1/2 and 65! People that opted to wait until 65 in order to collect a larger check.
How was, and why was the age of 62 1/2 picked?
Jeremy Trudell @ 130:
That's funny. My mother said that at your age. She retired at 65 and died at 69. She did not get much but she got enough to live until she died.
Social Security has long since been spent, it and Medicare is at the heart of the $50 trillion in long term debt. Read the GAO on fiscal stewardship, they may take the cash out of our paycheck but it has spent spent spent.
Shut up and honor thy father and mother!
I'll take my share in a lump sum next year, thank you very much.
George Will Wants Those Lazy Seniors Off The Dole
Bob Dole's having geriatric gang bangs?
Uh, George...You don't spend capital. You invest it. Schmuck.
So, go-war-George is basically saying that everyone who has ever done anything to build this nation has no value, should get nothing for their hard work and dedication to American society and humanity, and for doing their part as every generation must, they should just do a broken-hip limp off into the sunset like good little old folks. Oh, and where in the hell does he get the idea that the majority who will depend on social security will be living in the lap of luxury? This guy smells worse than the pile my dog left for me this morning.
George Will - another rich twit commenting on the plight of the great unwashed.
Let me tell you all about life on Social Security, folks. I had to retire in my 50s with a profound disability. Because I had worked all my adult life, I qualified for SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance.) I had saved enough money over the years to look forward to a comfortable retirement at 65. My savings were gone within about 5 years, trying to keep my home in MA. Finally, was forced to sell it and move to the South, where the living is a lot cheaper. Back in 2001, I was forced to go to NC Rehab to try to find work because it is now impossible to live on Social Security. They got me a very low-paying job but hey! it was bringing in another $400 per month. I managed to pay off all my bills because, like so many SS recipients, I was living off my credit cards. I still had excellent credit. The job lasted one year as NC was in a recession at the time. I got laid off, unable to collect unemployment benefits due to the part-time job.
Six months later, my 8 year old car died. Had to buy a new car and am still paying that off. I get 10 dollars a month in food stamps. You can imagine how far that goes, even in NC. And I just learned a couple of weeks ago, our COLA raise for '08 will be 2.3%, which is about 20 a MONTH when the real rate of inflation is about 6 percent. So, now I have a choice. Do I buy food or gas to go buy the food, which I will not be able to afford after putting gas in the tank. By the way, my car gets 35 mph highway.
What pisses me off about the George Wills of the world, is that when that freak turns 65 or 67, he will be collecting his SS just like me. But, of course, he is entitled, I am not.
I read an 'article' George Will wrote in the 70's and it was so stunningly absurd I believed he was a nutbag then, he is what he has always been: a total loser of 'journalist/commentator'. Only in America would such an idiot continue to make a living writing such tripe.
Wag @ 69:
Libertarian bullshit. So, the United States would become an industrialized nation with no universal healthcare and no state monies for old people? Brilliant. I know, bring back debtor's prisons and workhouses!
Diogenes? knows what an idiot George Will is. SS was designed for people like Diogenes, I knew a ton of people in Florida who used the SS checks only for games of golf and gas money for their yachts. It makes me sick. When George Will leaves this earth will someone please urinate on his grave.
I wonder if seniors will vote Republican while that party continues to take away everything they've worked, fought in wars for, and paid into for their whole adult lives? If they do, then fuck 'em - you get what you deserve. Hopefully, our senior citizens have gained some wisdom over the years and will vote accordingly.
Elect Ron Paul and he'll make it okay for you to kill your neighbor and take his property. Anything else would be excessive government intervention
Name not Earl @ 146:
Of course those people fueling their yachts with SS checks would have some additional income I think and their SS income would be clawed back through income taxes.
Why it is impossible that Social Security is “broken and needs to be fixed”.
The answers are apparent to those willing to do a little simple math. Follow the bouncing equations.
The average life expectancy of an American, (white, male), is 72.
The average age an American begins working is 18.
The average age an American can retire & begin collecting Social Security benefits 65.
Subtract 18 from 72 = 54 years on average of paying into Social Security.
Subtract 65 from 72 = 7 years on average of collecting from Social Security, for only 50% of the population that live that long.
What does this tell us?
Most Americans work for 50 years during their lives paying into Social Security.
50% of all Americans never live long enough to collect benefits for more than 7 years.
40% percent of Americans die and never get to collect any benefits at all.
Bottom line;This means that there should be an overwhelming surplus of money since so much is paid in for so long, by so many, yet so few even live long enough to collect benefits.
To make things more easily understandable, when politicians start talking about “privatization” think of it as "pirate –ization", and pirates steal.
Georgie "Bowtie" Will and Mitch "Fishface" McConnell: separated at birth?
Login or Register to post comments.