The Situation Room: Pushing White House Memes On Social Security
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Bill W)
CNN clearly is gunning for FOXNews' spot as the propaganda department for the White House and Wall Street. Why else would they need to introduce a segment on the various candidates' stances on Social Security thusly?:
Voters know that Social Security is a financial time bomb that needs fixing. The latest government calculation is that the system will go bust—be out of money-- in 2041. So voters paying in want something done.
Um, no. For the record, Social Security is not a time bomb--nice imagery, CNN. Common sense tells you that--if left alone (granted, a huge IF)--there will always be more people paying into Social Security than SSI is paying out, even with the baby boomer generation. It's a self-sustaining system as FDR designed it. You know who wants you to believe that there is a financial crisis? The Bush White House obviously, but also their cronies on Wall Street, just rubbing their collective hands in anticipation of getting a hold on private accounts to manage.
To keep furthering the false memes, CNN interviews a Giuliani supporter who doesn't believe that Social Security will be available to him (maybe because you keep telling him that, CNN?) and goes through first the Republican candidates' support for Bush's private accounts either in toto or in part. The Democratic candidates? They "just want to raise taxes" (hmmm...taking our framing from Grover Norquist again?). Technically correct, but definitely a Republican framing of raising the cap on income from its current cap of $90,000 a year. As it stands, the person who makes $1,000,000/ year pays the same payroll tax as the person who makes $95,000. Imagine the benefits of lifting the cap.
But giving the general populace (and more importantly in this election year, the electorate) the real facts so that they can make decisions that will be in their best interests, well, that just wouldn't be newsworthy, would it, CNN?
Welcome to Pravda, 2008.
It's what we get when we let them get away with murder.
the person who makes $1,000,000/ year pays the same income tax as the person who makes $95,000.
i think you mean "payroll tax."
Medicaid on the other hand is ready to go KABLOOIE!
some guy @ 2:
I do, you're right. I'm guilty of rushing through posts sometimes on breaks from my actual job. ;)
Perhaps there's a link between CNN and Corporat America?
Way to go, "librul" media.
CNN is hardly alone in this. Most of the MSM is just Fox-lite.
"Voters know that Social Security is a financial time bomb that needs fixing. The latest government calculation is that the system will go bust—be out of money– in 2041. So voters paying in want something done."
Lets say that this is the case. Even so, a reduction in the massive Government spending on defense (I.E. $687 billion per year or so) and on these insane an pointless wars would more than make up for it.
Every time I hear someone talk about Social Security going bust, I see Al Gore talking about the "lock box" and everyone yucking it up.
Yeah, that Al Gore was a real riot, wasn't he? Guy just didn't know what he was talking about, did he? What a dim wit that guy was, huh? (snark)
It's looking more and more logical just to make plans to get out of this wreck of a Country in the next five years.
Isn't the maximum amount $102,000 in 2008?
"voters know that Social Security is a financial time bomb"
Does this mean we can have CIA agents torture retirees?
Fortunately when it comes to money in their pocket versus a bird in a bush in the next county, the average American citizen is too smart for them. But that wont stop them trying. They want it all.
CNN framed this piece like Karl Rove wrote it for them.
I'd be more worried about all that 401K loot that the pillagers are going to find a way to smash and grab. If it's not already in the works under the cloak of this mortgage shite.
What's a meme? A theme that's been reamed?
So you and I are going to get the same amount out of Social Security but I am suppose to pay 4 times as much because I make more? Well if thats the case I want more benefits!
chris @ 14:
Sure sucks to help others, don't it? Almost like socialism. Ew. Dirty word there...so much like communism, except it's spelled different.
This has only one connotation for most of us and it is called control, it is all illusions designed to leave us as nothing but serfs, if we are not already, to a system designed for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.
chris @ 14:
ok you get to skin a moose!
God pity the poor dentists of this country who are only making $275,000 and will get only a pittance back from Social Security. Certainly not enough to support their lifestyle. What a pity they don't have any private investment options.
First of all the fund won't run out of money in 2041 it would still pay about 75-80 percent even if we did nothing. If we did do something to help it rather than get rid of it, imagine what we could do for it? The lies they spread about this are amazing.
No way this mess can be fixed with our attitudes. We're pretending something is there that ISN'T first of all.
And you notice even today none of our so called leaders are coming out asking Americans to make sacrifces.
Nope. Americans don't want to hear that.
Again. Take it or leave.
The U.S. Government’s total downstream liabilities and unfunded commitments (including Medicare, Social Security, Public Debt, Pensions, etc.) have now exceeded $53 trillion dollars (according to David Walker, the U.S. Comptroller General and Head of the Government Accountability Office). $53 trillion translates into a de facto debt of $455,000 for every American household.
Sadly none of the "viable" Democratic candidates are willing to acknowledge these harsh realities. I dearly wish I lived in an "important" primary state so I could ask Queen Hilary of Clinton exactly what she'd do about that payroll cap. Or what she'd do about healthcare. Etc etc.
ducksworthy @ 18:
Investment? Don'tcha know anythin' about Trickle Down Economics? The word from Political "leaders" is the more they earn/have, the more they spend!!
Warren Buffett busted them out.
Stop borrowing billions for Iraq.
Geez.
'Voters know'.....proof? I guess cnn noticed that fox gets attention by broadcasting big lies,so they will do it too. No wonder Ted Turner just shakes his head when ask about what cnn and hn have become.
L.A. Confidential @ 20:
Carefull who you trust with voodoo economics LA. According to these so-called economic experts, debt is bad. Yet, EVERY nation on the globe apparently is in debt. Who this nation is that holds all that debt is unclear. Oh wait, it is clear. See my country owes your country, you owe my country, we both owe China, who owes somebody else, that also owes them back, etc, etc, etc,......it's a big banker's wet dream world we live in.
Funny how social security is a 'timebomb', but the interest payments on the federal dept, currently $250 Billion per year is just hunky dory. When Jimmy Carter was being attacked for the deficit by Ronald RayGun the deficit was 15 billion, the total debt was 50 Billion (I think). When Georgie Bushie (the second) came into office the interest payment on the debt was about 100 Billion -- Despite doing a massively heroic job Bill Clinton never eliminated the federal debt. The 'surplus' was a surplus of annual input over annual outgo, but the total debt has never recovered from the Reagan era. Now following 7 years of con-artist-nomics we have almost 9 TRILLION dollars in total debt. The interest payment on the debt is 19% of the total annual budget. The coming downturn could add trillions more, while simultaneously increasing the interest rate Uncle Sam has to pay to his Masters.
Could the news media be more biased in their coverage of economic matters?
I don't think so.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
VoiceFromTheWilderness @ 26:
Who is the interest payments paid to?
ysbaddaden @ 3:
Yeah, but fund managers on Wall Street don't make any money
taking Medicare/Medicad private...
As deepthroat said: Follow the Money.....
Correction:
Total federal debt in 1979: 640 Billion
Total Federal Debt 2007: 5.4 Trillion
So we pay off the 1979 federal debt every 3 years in interest payments of 250 billion per year
After 9-11, we were told to go shopping.
Now we have a problem with the economy, so the govt is going to give us money and tell us to go shopping.
Maybe we can fix social security if we just come up with a good shopping plan.
http://www.novamradio.com/ is a good place to get alternative news from.
ConcernedCanuck @ 15:
You guys can't get it in using democracy so now you want to back door it...
You should take a couple economics class before you speak of the workers paradise....
ConcernedCanuck @ 25:
The bankers aren't going to loan large scale capital to country's addicted to Television and Cheese Doodles with no ambition but consuming more Television and Cheese Doodles.
28 WashStateBlue
Medicad, Deep Throat, we seem to be on a theme here.
Who is it paid to? It's paid to people who have money to lend. Is that you?
One way to understand funding a government through debt vs taxes is that by using debt the rich (er) elements of society make money by loaning the government money, and then being repaid with interest. So at the very least it's a boondogle for the rich. Unfortunately, ever since Ronald RayGun the US has been borrowing so much that there haven't been enough rich americans to lend all the needed money, and so the 'net inflow of foreign capital' into US Treasury bonds has been significant -- that's what it means when they say 'China owns US debt', or 'Saudia Arabia owns US debt' -- those being our two largest creditors.
Using debt financing of government, while selling that debt to foreign governments, is in fact a payment by US tax payers to foreign governments and large foreign banks. This trend has accelerated lately with large foreign acquisitions of US financial corporations. The debt years of the ReaganBush/Bush years have had the specific outcome of 'making the world safe for multi-national corporations' and are even now hastening the ownership of 'america' by foreign governments and corporations. In the near future america's third world level debt will mean that foreign governments will get to pass judgement on our social programs, and government decisions of all kinds, just as we do with all those third world countries owe us money.
Of course the multi-nationals like Haliburton, Exxon, Carlisle group -- they are owed money by every one under the free market rules put into place by American presidents who actually work for them, and thus will continue to prosper, even while advocating for, and ultimately reducing and eliminating social programs that support the people who actually do the work that creates the money that pays the taxes that is given to the bond holders.
Is this a great country or what?
50 years ago I said Soc Sec was neither very social nor secure. Now that I am collecting it, I was right. Now they want to not pay what I contributed for all these years. dog help my kids and grandkids - the govt. sure wont.
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 is 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.
Heres how honest Blitzer is:
…”This was a debate, and I wanted the candidates to debate the issues, and let them go back and forth — much easier to do now that there are just three candidates left, as opposed to nearly three times as many.” …
I'm 50 years old and the oldest political argument I remember anyone making was hearing my father and uncle (both very conservative) complaining they would never see a social security check. This was in 1962 or 3. Both went on to retire in the early 80's and drew checks until they died in the mid-to-late 90's. The right has been scare-mongering on this for decades. Why won't any Democratic politicians really call them on this?
bill w @ 36:
At the rate things are going people 60 and up are going to be out working full time and paying those who are supposed to be replacing them "Social Security".
Even though social security is a "trust fund", there is no fund. It actually has no money in it, because the Government has always spent it. This means that whatever the demographics, it will be the taxpayers who make both the future payments and cover any shortfall. More borrowing and a greater deficit, of course.
Yeah. If we would have followed george bush's plan (stop SS and make people invest in the stock market) can you imagine what shape most would be in right now.
Bob @ 39:
If people knew Bush Co 1+2 completely looted the SS Funds and stuffed them full of worthless IOU's they would be very angry.
DC @ 41:
Clinton didn't do that. He stopped using SS as "general revenue" and started putting the money where it belonged. In the SS Trust.
Remove the income cap.
Problem solved. NEXT.
Yes for 7 years the White House and the Media reported how well and strong the Stock Market was even when Americans knew better they still believed the word of the President.
As Foreign investors took notice to the lies and the propaganda they withdrew their stocks from the corrupt US Stock Market. Americans are told their no Global Warming, Economy is strong and the mission is complete we won. Now Republicans did good with the lies as we see Michigan voters still believe all the big car industry is coming back to Michigan. Rev. Huck says if you see a floating cross it was God's work. Rudy was the only person to save all of NYC victims from the 9/11 attack all by himself. McCain says he knows nothing about Economy but wants to stay in Iraq for thousands of years and wants to bomb Iran for no reason at all. Social Security is in the same sharp as the Stock Market. In the wings the Saudis are buying up shares of US banks. We will see change but not the one Obama is talking about. Now you don't need a report to say how low the Americans are in education and common sense, look at what's happening. Soon the Saudis will own the US banking system and Americans will have a new landlord. History has shown that what the US is doing now is how most of the power countries fell. As the rest of the World builds up their economy the US is borrowing and having the White House and friends rob the US Treasury.
Look for the Stock Market to continue drop below 10,000 as Paulson loads up on as much money he can steal.
Jackie @ 46:
That, being the most important point. And apparently not enough people "get it".
Wall Street must need that need that money REAL BAD.
Nobody but Rushbots think the Trust Fund "is a financial time bomb" (this is a financial time bomb ) The big boys on Wall Street know the credit bubble has burst, liquidity no where in sight..............except maybe that Social Security thingie they got down in D.C.
If the talking heads at CNN want something that needs fixed they should take a look at Medicare...
Joe O. @ 7:
So, has anyone seen this government formula used to calculate the system going bust?
I heard the formula assumes that the GDP will only grow something like 2% a year. This when the average GDP has been north of 3%.
Nicolle,
I like this post. Can't discuss this subject enough or post the relevant links enough times for my taste. It is an excellent case-study of republican lies and tactics for fooling Americans into doing things that are not in their best interests.
dropkick @ 49:
There are "other shoes" now waiting to be dropped. (The Hedge Funds)
Bonkers @ 50:
In fact, I have bookmarked it so that I can touch on all the links later. Praise in advance: Nice work!
Better begin the tough process of making new arrangements for everyday living. Who knows, maybe the simple pleasures of life will make a big comeback. Replacing mass gluttony as the norm.
Liberal AND Proud @ 45:
On that note, how much do you want to bet that among his millions and millions in dividends, interest, and capital gains earned every month, that Warren Buffett also has a direct deposit from SSI for around $1,200 on the first of the month.
greg white @ 37:
You do realize ofcourse that SSI pays out to more than simply seniors. Something like 35-40% of all beneficiaries are children, widows and the disabled. Of the disabled, some are collecting from their twenties until their death. So your simple math exercise is incorrect. One of the dumbest moves made regarding SSI was the expansion of who could claim the funds. I think it was done for pure "vote for me" political manipulation with no thoughts to the long term effects. And before folks 'attack' that comment, I'm not suggesting something shouldn't have been done help those groups, but it didn't necessarily have to be SSI or if it "had to be" they should have changed/increased the payroll tax to cover. I'm sure the problem was the notion of the amazing pot of money... "the Trust Fund". As if it was unlimited and could pay for everything.
Personally I think the smartest thing every done for SSI was the yearly status letter we receive letting us know how much we would receive given this or that event and any associated age requirements. I think I will vest at age 67.5, can't remember. The best part of that letter is the yearly total that I have contributed. It is a hell of a reality check. The number of times I have participated in conversations of "How bad Social Security is...", "How we are getting screwed...", "How I've pay so much money into it...", "It should pay my full retirement...", etc, etc basically stopped when folks I know started getting that letter. Suddenly I was getting asked by friends and co-workers about IRAs and how I learned to pay off my debts, saving money, etc. And no, I'm not talking about upper income folks, I'm talking about folks who range from minimum wage to a little over 100k with 2-3 kids to raise. All began rethinking their financial future. So basically what I am saying is, it helped people begin to take a personal ownership in their future in what ever way they could.
If it were me, I would want the following changes.
1) Bump immediately the payroll tax ceiling to at least $150,000 or higher. And revisit that every 5 years to see if it should increase again. *and yes the budget office should review what impact (post) that change has on the economy but that shouldn't be a reason not to do the first bump... but maybe affect how much the next one is.
2) Revisit the widow and children benefits. I have friends who collected it even though their parent remarried and it wasn't needed. That hurts all of us. Instead it should be something that is there if needed, stops when things improve and can return if need returns. My frustration here is that in general I think people want it both ways, for their portion of SSI (payroll tax) its always "that's my money" and when its regarding the monthly checks, its "our goverment should make sure the money is there". Its either a program to ensure the greater good or its now. What I pay into, if I live long enough I hope to leverage, but I don't think of it as my money and don't think I'm owed what I paid. I hope this makes sense.
3) Revisit the disability benefits. That should probably be funded via the general budget.
4) Add to the annual letter guidance for folks on how to plan for their future. Basic stuff with examples. "Even if you can only save $25 dollars a month, it will add up to... after 10 years... blah, blah, blah" Create a website that includes common sense approaches and resources for planning for the future.
stfreak @ 55:
Let's hear you say this when you've been disabled. Or you have a family member who is dependent on disability payments from a sure source.
Your ideas are those of a dick.
Seriously the only way we can ever expect to afford all of the spending obligations that are coming up is to medically change our monetary policies and that has to start with eliminating the useless leach that is the federal reserve. Once we stop paying interest on all the money they create from nothing we can start getting our spending under control.
miss_kitty @ 56:
Uh wow, nice attack. Better to have ideas than none at all.
I didn't say don't support or help, not in what portion of my rather long post. I simply argue that we need a better way, for disability in general.
I have two friends and three folks I used to know (co-ops, etc) all who receive SSI disability. I understand their need and support it. If my simple suggestion of fixing SSI but being honest and properly funding their needs through the general funds makes me a dick... so be it.
Mark @ 57:
Yeah, I was pissed when Bush pushed those tax cuts in 2001. I wanted all that so called surplus to go to paying off the debt to free up the portion dedicated to the interest payment.
stfreak @ 58:
Actually, it was a very clumsy attack on my part. I don't know what came over me
Chris, I am so sick and tired of people like you. Why don't you ignore what they actually taught you in economics departments, in case you haven't noticed it has about as much to do with the reality you live in as Star Trek, and learn from economists, like say Herman Daly, who try to create economic models that aren't based on un-realistic assumptions. They didn't teach me, while working on my economics degree, that the free market has existed like they teach in school for about three weeks during human civilization, or that no country in modern times has developed along “free market” lines (not a single one, every one involved massive amounts of state intervention). They didn't teach me that the pricing mechanism and national indices are missing huge amounts of information (when they claim all needed information is in the pricing mechanism) and they didn't teach me how little NAFTA and similar deals has anything to do with the "free trade". I could go on about how money is created, how banks create wealth out of nothing and how the financial markets have lost all touch to underlying real value over the last few decades, but won't.
By the way, democracy and capitalism are two completely different things. One is one dollar on vote, the other one person one vote and there is no middle ground. You either have democracy or you have capitalism, they go together no better than state socialism. If you want quotes from “free market” economists about democracy let me know. They hate it no less than Stalin.
Oh, can you provide me with an example of a privatized SS system that isn’t a complete failure? Do you want some stats on Chile’s and the UK’s privatization? I think you’d be interested to hear what the BUSINESS candidate in Chile even had to say about the privatized system there (he thought it should be changed to something like ours).
funny hjow barack asshole obama has picked up that lie and propagated it, too! Just like a good LIEberDem.
The SS privatization argument would be done the second the press covered how similar ventures have faired in other countries. The press won't of course, but if they did the privatization wouldn't have a chance of going through. It would just be an argument about how to best save the current system.
A Bright Future! Rapidly approaching!
http://tinyurl.com/37u98q
Ha ha
http://tinyurl.com/3bsek7
L.A. Confidential @ 65:
I would really like to follow you're links, but seeing that you're using tiny url- which doesn't allow for previews- I'm not gonna do it.
Bonkers @ 52:
Yes, some reports suggest it might be 750 trillion dollars hanging out there. I heard that Japan is considering dropping it's interest rates (now somewhere around .5%), I think this might be an attempt to shore up what might be a possible hidden catastrophe coming.
stfreak @ 59:
Yeah, but if I remember correctly it was Alan "sub-prime loans are good for the market" Greenspan who warned against pay off that debt in that it would cause economic havoc. Good God I hate that man.
these bastards that lie just make you so mad, you want to take them hunting with a ak.
Andy K @ 66:
Here. Our "History"
http://tinyurl.com/2ovxo2
The latest government calculation is that the system will go bust—be out of money– in 2041.
This is a FLAT OUT LIE!!! According to the latest Social Security Trustee's report, in 2041 IF NOTHING IS EVER DONE and the economy grows at a measly 2.07% from now until then, Social Security will be able to pay approximately 74% of benefits. In real terms, that is in terms of goods and services this 74% of promised benefits will be higher than 100% of benefits today.
In NO WAY does it follow that the system will be "out of money." This "reporter" should be asked if he is ignornant of the facts or wants to intentionally mislead people.
L.A. Confidential @ 70:
Do you follow me when I refer to previews?
Mouse over this link. On your tool bar(probably on the bottom left, if you're using a pc, don't know about apple), you get a preview of where the link is to. In this case I linked to The Onion. you can see that. But when you use tiny url, you might be linking to a porn site, which, ya know, is NSFW. Maybe you're linking to Redstate (I know ya better, just sayin...), or some other not-so-trustworthy site.
You get more people to click through your links if you don't use tiny url. That's all I'm sayin. :)
Nicole Belle @ 4:
Thank you, Nicole, for running this dialog.
YES, there would be more than enough money to fund Social Security for you, me, and all the younger people out there, but ONLY when the wealthy elite pay their fair share of the SS tax.
The rich do not pay their fair percentage of Social Security taxes.
Make no mistake: The stock market is still in for the ride of its life, and those 401ks are going to be among the biggest losers. This market was manipulated today by the Fed: it's all smoke and mirrors...for now.
We need the promise of income security when we retire; we need the promise of healthcare security not only when we retire, but at all times.
Anybody who thinks otherwise is engaging in wishful thinking about their investment finesse in a rigged market...or they're rich and prefer to keep that privileged status of not paying the same percentage of Social Security taxes that the poor folk have to pay.
To trust any of the current occupants of the White House on matters related to finance or the economy is clearly foolish. They are proven liars and thieves.
How can CNN be peddle this shit while we're in the midst of a huge financial crisis generated by the same Wall Street Tycoons who would handle Social Security?
The American economy is in the crapper today. The American economy is pouring all of its effort into two losing wars today. NOT 2041 but TODAY. And yet you blather on, you let these assholes tell you what matters, what is important is what may or may not happen in 33 years. You are such suckers!!!
Remove the cap, and at the same time lower the rate by a % point or so. Problem solved. Benefit to small business and employees with lower income.
So the Left considers CNN a White House shill.
The Right calls it part of the 'librul media'.
If it's too far Right for the Left and too far Left for the Right then they will remain my channel of choice. ;)
"If it’s too far Right for the Left and too far Left for the Right then they will remain my channel of choice."
Genius logic. That works if what they say has equal merit. See, what you are doing is what the corporate press does with "centrism". Centrism isn't what is mainstream according to polls (if it were universal healthcare, the end to the war, much stronger environmental regulation, etc would be "Centrist"). No, centrist to these people is, the "left" says one thing, the "right" another and I'll sit in the middle. I have no clue if the views are equally valid, I'll just pretend they are because I'm too lazy to find out. Regardless, because I refuse to take a stand on an issue that makes me "centrist" and not extreme in my opinion. That also makes it possible that I take no chances, because one of the polls COULD be logically correct on an issue and centrism might, and usually is, at least half wrong.
Tell me, how can a huge corporation, who is dependant on other corporations for advertising revenue, be part of a left wing conspiracy? What logic do you have to brutally rape to come to that conclusion?
SS was fixed in 1982 by raising the tax rate to setup a trust fund for the baby boomers. Then in 1985 Congress could not keep its grubby fingers off of it and started to take the money out and replace it with special bonds.
There was no Clinton surplus the budget was still in deficit, the surplus was in the trust funds. The SS trust fund has $2 trillion of bonds in it and in 2018 the trust fund will no longer be in surplus. The bonds will then need to
be cashed in and you will be taxed a second time for the taxes that you had already paid. The Bush tax cuts were your surplus SS taxes that he gave to his wealthy political donors.
Since all the SS surplus funds are now being spent, for every dollar that you would invest in a private account would be just another dollar that would be added to the national debt in your name. Also imagine the costs involved in managing 50 to 100 million individual accounts with very small amounts of money in them. No wonder wall street wants its fingers on this pot of gold.
CNN has totally sold out. Their last close to honest reporting was on Katrina and even then they eventually dropped the story.. I moved from NBC Today due to the idiocy of Matt Lauer and his blatant blathering on the Republican talking points. Then there was a shake up at CNN American Morning and now there is some Fox-worthy idiot guy in the morning who makes no pretext of objectivity, who openly snears at Democrats and (god-forbid) liberals. There is nowhere on any broadcast channel, with the possible exception of Bill Moyers, where there is anything remotely like journalism. Even NPR is a casualty of the corporate take over of the press.
As soon as they finish auctioning off the airwaves and restricting the internet, we will have a harder time getting the real news than anyone in China. I hope that there is enough nostalgia left in Europe that they might consider beginning a Radio Free America channel.
1) Raise the Social Security income cap to $250K.
2) Dismantle all the Busholini tax cuts for the rich.
3) End Busholini's crusade in Iraq.
Result: enough $ to cure a lot of the ills that Busholini and his cabal have wrought this nation and the world in 7 short years!
chris @ 14:
Decades ago the actuarially necessary surplus premiums were raided by our "leaders" to mask shortfalls in the general fund, to make the U.S. budget deficit seem smaller than it really was. This helped fund splendid midguided adventures like the Vietnam War and S&L bailout, and so the SS premiums were really a regressive tax on the lower and middle classes, where the rich got to pay a far lower percentage than the bottom 98% of the population. So the equitable solution is to calculate the actuarial shortfall and levy a temporary tax on the very richest Americans, until they have paid what they owe in unfunded support of the U.S. budget over the years. When the system is paid what is owed, return to the present system and put a lock on the bonds sitting in the file drawer. Better yet, dollar cost average those bonds into purchases of indexed equities over a period of years, and let the investment grow at market average rates instead of sitting like dead trees in a government file drawer. Voila, problem solved. Fairly and equitably. If Washington and Wall St. behave over a period of decades, a surplus will grow and payroll taxes can actually be reduced with full benefits paid. I know, it will never happen.
Bob in PA @ 83:
So you want to go back 15 years and figure out who was paying less and make them pay more, can you say government cluster f*ck?? There is no way on earth they could ever manage such a thing, what if the person is dead or lost all of their money? How about we just get rid of SS all together and give the people there money back and let them invest and save for themselves?
chris @ 84:
Social security will run of money starting in 2018, not 2041. Why? Because the surplus has been spent. It has been used to balance the budget for decades. The IOUs on this surplus are worthless. The unfunded liability according to the Comptroller General of the United States is $9 trillion for social security (current debt level by the way is $9.1 trillion). Stop believing that this is not an issue. However, it is not as critical as Medicare and Medicaid whose unfunded liability is more than $20 trillion, but it is still an issue.
Way back when there were 20 people working per per person on SS. Sometime in the next few years it will be 2 people working per person on SS. Hard to keep up with that demand. The only way to correct it is eliminate the ceiling on the payroll tax, reduce benefits, and change the way it is indexed. But who on the payroll of the AARP will go for that? Who in D.C. has the guts to tell the American people that taxes are going to be raised on EVERYONE?
This country needs an honest discussion about what is important and where we are heading in the next 50 years. There will be many hard choices that need to be made. It sucks, but I personally do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with trillions upon trillions of debt because we simply lacked the balls to make the tough decisions. And contary to many simplistic and moronic people - DEBT DOES MATTER.
And please stop being so simplistic to think that just taxing the rich and reducing defense spending will solve the problem. Yes, it is a start, but it will NOT solve our problems by any stretch of the imagination. We still have a mountain of debt and many ill-conceived government programs to fund. The real cost of that waste of skin president of ours prescription drug plan is now more than $9 trillion. Nice.
Social Security was certainly not self-sustaining as FDR designed it. The Social Security tax has been raised 665% since inception. The Social Security base has been increased 125% OVER INFLATION since inception. Yet despite all this, benefits will probably have to be cut by 25% come 2041. To call that a self-sustaining system is creative at best, out-and-out lying at worst.
"Social Security was certainly not self-sustaining as FDR designed it. "
That's because the kids in DC playing with our money like it was their first credit card love to dip into the kitty for all kinds of retarded toys.
CNN-Radio pulls the same stunts all the time, slanting any "news" to fit the hardcore right-wing fascist agenda for our nation.
crazylikeafox @ 85:
There would be millions of homeless Americans if they got rid of Social Security.....
Well, I guess that is what the newly built FEMA camps are for---those people with no home after they gut Social Security.
.
They really need to learn how to bundle their message better...
Not a peep on how the ALIENS are looting Social Security?
oh, wait... that's next weeks meme...
.
That’s because the kids in DC playing with our money like it was their first credit card love to dip into the kitty for all kinds of retarded toys.
Actually, that's also FDR's doing. Social Security has been required to "invest" its surplus in the treasury since its inception. Furthermore, the amount of the national debt has always exceeded the "value" of the Social Security Trust Fund. So there has never been any money there to pay back the Trust Fund. This has been true since FDR and continues to be true today.
to me.. that clip was very unbalance... because it only asked ONE person.. and that man was a dentist.. someone who is apart of the upper middle class. What about the many people who aren't upper middle class citizens.. like most of the people that visits that Dentist?
If I was a dentist worrying about Social Security, I would want privatelized services too.. but I'm NOT. So excuse me for saying, but that person does NOT speak for me.. or the other majority of citizens who could barely make ends meat without some form of help.
This was exactly my reaction, right wing PR on CNN, this argument is so over. The truth is that Social Security can be saved... Medicare is a totally different story (an ugly, giant, and ravenous Republican pork program that needs radical restructuring).
Sigh. Can we stop repeating the LIE that SS isn't in crisis because it holds treasury bonds? Someone will have to pick up the tab for those bonds when they are paid, and that someone is the U.S. taxpayer. That's called a tax increase on the working to support the retired. I expect more intellectual honesty from the progressive side on this issue. Making believe there's no problem is what Repugs do.
dropkick @ 49:
Yes, I've seen it. It's meticulously researched and spelled out in Al Franken's book "The Truth (with jokes)". Bush's bullshit projections are based on (you won't believe this) contributions and payouts from now to INFINITY, using the worst-case GDP projections (typically, the best-case projections have been closest to reality, even in times of recession). They are also using bullshit projections that by the time the year Infinity rolls around, humans will live to be 150 years old, and still retire at age 65, meaning they will collect SS for longer than they put in.
I'm not making this up. That's the sad part.
Almost everything-- wait. No, EVERYTHING the Bush admin. has told us about "fixing" social security is a bald-faced LIE.
Al Franken wrote a book called "The Truth" When describing SS mess the numbers administration uses reflects the crisis exagerated by using numbers like average person living to 150 and payments of liabilities extending into infinity. THE ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO CHANGE SUBJECT AGAIN. They will do anything to advoid talking about why we are in Iraq. Most of us all know the military is being used for the agenda of Rockefellor, It is that simple. The nation has leveraged out 10 trillion dollars and now The Rock wants tol use military to control all OIL ON EARTH. The US military is being used and will never be taken care of if they even make it home.
I want anti-propganda laws and an FCC that works.
Fuck these clowns, they have destroyed this country finacially!
Social security will run of money starting in 2018, not 2041. Why? Because the surplus has been spent. It has been used to balance the budget for decades. The IOUs on this surplus are worthless.
----------------------
With the stock market dropping, people are rushing to treasury bills. for safety. Those are also government IOU's. Why would people buy something worthless if they were looking for safety?
The IOU's are not worthless. They are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Social Security IOU's will be repaid to Social Security when the need is there. The government may have to raise taxes or borrow more money to do so, but the Social Security IOU's will be repaid.
Action alert:
Tell CNN they're full of it: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?65
I'm sure someone must have specific e-mail addresses they can share.
Tell CNN they're wrong: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?65
tell CNN they're wrong: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?65
Ron.j @ 101:
It's my understanding that the IOU placeholders for the Social Security fund are all in the form of Treasury Bonds. They are not worthless, in fact they're considered a very safe investment.
Also, it states in the Constitution, 14th Amendment:
"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
Bush is violating the Constitution if he is telling us that the SS bonds are worthless. No big surprise there, though.
Funny how, when you talk about environmental problems that are 5 or 10 years away, these same guys couldn't care less. But Social Security...? Oh my goodness, if there's a tiny, easily corrected dip on the charts for 30-40 years out, we need to gut it immediately and hand them the cash.
It's disgusting.
Just like the Neocons in our govenrment are trying to get their hands on our EI funds (over 55 billions worth) your Neo-Cons are trying to get at your social Security money.
If they do it's OUTRIGHT theft from the people. Not that this who fucking last few years hasn't been theft of billions already...
NotGullible @ 96:
A tax increase on the working to support the retired, eh?
Well, first of all, if it hadn't Bush's retarded series of tax cuts (which primarily benefit the super-rich and not the average American), a tax increase to repay the bonds wouldn't be necessary.
Secondly, your complaint that the working are burdened to support the retired is the entire CONCEPT of social security. You are paying today to benefit today's retired. Your children's generation will pay tomorrow to benefit you when you are retired. It's too late to change this because of the gap it would create if the system was overhauled. But it doesn't matter. Social Security has held up through our worst financial times, and it will continue to do so as long as nobody screws around with it.
We are borrowing billions, if not trillions of dollars from foreign countries like China because of Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies. How do you think we IOU all that money? Bonds. Who's going to be responsible for paying it back? Future generations.
Please don't try to absolve the repubs for blame on this issue, the majority of it is on their hands.
Can I have second helping of total bullshit please?
Comments are closed on this entry