OT Social Security: It Ain't Broke So Don't ''Fix" It
David
furthered Bush administration's crisis rhetoric
CNN co-host Tucker Carlson and The Washington Post bolstered the Bush
administration's crisis rhetoric on Social Security by providing
misleading accounts of the federal program's "solvency."
On the December 16 edition of CNN's Crossfire, Carlson purported to
"correct" former Clinton national economic adviser Gene Sperling's
statement that "Social Security does not become insolvent until 2042."
Carlson responded: "In 2018, just to correct you ... that's, again,
only 14 years. Benefits will overtake revenues."
In a December 17 article in The Washington Post, after noting that
President Bush "said Social Security will be paying out more than it
collects" by 2018, staff writer Peter Baker reported that
congressional Democrats are "[c]iting different accounting than the
president's" to "argue" that under the current system Social Security
will "still be solvent for nearly 50 years."
In fact, Sperling is correct in noting that Social Security is
projected to remain solvent until 2042, according to the same
authoritative U.S. government report upon which Carlson relied: the
2004 annual report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds (OASDI). 2042
is the year that the Social Security trust fund is projected to run
out; the year Carlson cited, 2018, represents the time when the
program's payouts to retirees are projected to exceed tax revenue. At
that time, the government will have to supplement revenues with the
Social Security trust fund to meet payment obligations to retirees,
but the system will not be insolvent.
The Post's Baker, on the other hand, misleadingly suggested that one's
view of when Social Security becomes insolvent is a matter of partisan
opinion. It is not. Bush is talking about one thing -- what is
projected to happen in 2018 -- and the Democrats are talking about
another -- when the system is projected to become insolvent. By
conflating the two issues, Baker suggested that the Democrats are
being partisan in their assertions about projected insolvency. In
fact, Sperling's and the Congressional Democrats' assertions reflect,
respectively, the presumably nonpartisan (though the Bush
administration is well-represented) Social Security Board of Trustees
and the at- least-equally nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office,
which projects insolvency by 2052, rather than 2042.
From the December 16 edition of CNN's Crossfire:
SPERLING: I do believe that, even though Social Security does not
become insolvent until 2042, we as a country would be better to take
on the problem now.
[...]
CARLSON: In 2018, just to correct you, in 2018, which is only 14 years
from now, according to the board of trustees of overseers of Social
Security, that's, again, only 14 years. Benefits will overtake
revenues. So that's actually pretty soon.
From Baker's December 17 Washington Post article, "Bush Lays Out a
Plan to Revise the Social Security System":
Bush made clear [in the White House economic conference] that he
intends to expend considerable political energy in pushing for a
partial privatization of Social Security to help secure the program,
which faces sizable shortfalls over the next few decades. By 2018, he
said, Social Security will be paying out more than it collects, and
over the long term the system faces a $10.4 trillion unfunded
liability. ... Congressional Democrats dismissed the conference as a
public relations exercise distorting fiscal reality. Citing different
accounting than the president's, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid
(Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) argued that
Social Security would still be solvent for nearly 50 years.
patgkz
"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
news:a3f8s0hbrr7obkefo...@4ax.com...
cuh...@webtv.net
TRAITOR! fonda.A DAMN BUNCH OF TRAITORS!!!
cuhulin
Floweri...@webtv.net
are going to be.You get your news from cnn? I don't!
.......D-Day Larry
know_...@hotmail.com
It is one thing we should all be able to count on.
Social Security is far from bankrupt. Here are some facts from a
telephone press conference held Tuesday by Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.)
and others knowledgeable about the fund:
Some 48 million people get checks. Some 38 percent of those are
disabled, widowed or kids.
Social Security faces a challenge, not a crisis.
Privatization means cuts of up to 40 percent for future retirees.
Transition costs for setting up private accounts - Bush's proposed
solution - are estimated at over $2 trillion - money the United States
does not have.
When Argentina tried something similar, its entire economy tanked.
Challenge Bush's "the sky is falling" now and he'll back down.
Whether we are red-staters or blue-staters, most of us have relatives
dependent on Social Security - if we are not dependent on it ourselves.
Call 1-800-307-8525, the AARP hotline [regardless of whether you're a
member or not]. It will connect you to your senators and congressmen.
Write every senator and representative in Congress. Remind them that we
can vote the whole lot of them out of office if choose.
excerpted from:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0113-34.htm
=============
Emails to your legislators can easily be sent from here by anyone:
http://capwiz.com/aarp/issues/alert/?alertid=5744286
================
Facts about the Social security issue:
http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/socialsec/
http://www.aarp.org/socialsecurity/
=================
If any of us want to gamble, we can go to vegas.
KB
know_...@hotmail.com
know_...@hotmail.com
MnMikew
<know_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105726720.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Please Say NO to Gambling with Social Security!!!
>
Funny in 1998 Clinton was claiming it WAS broke and needed fixing. And the
left was all over it. Now it's magically fixed?
Couple of good articles on it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200501141230.asp
dxAce
MnMikew wrote:
> <know_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1105726720.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Please Say NO to Gambling with Social Security!!!
> >
> Clueless liberal speak.
>
> Funny in 1998 Clinton was claiming it WAS broke and needed fixing. And the
> left was all over it. Now it's magically fixed?
Gore claimed it was broke too, as did Teddy Kennedy.
Stephen M.H. Lawrence
| Please Say NO to Gambling with Social Security!!!
Please put the barrel all the way into your mouth
and pull the trigger.
Many grateful thanks,
Steve
bpnjensen
>>Please put the barrel all the way into your mouth
and pull the trigger.<<
Damn, that's mean, even for an off-topic post, even for one you
disagree with.
Bruce Jensen
David
Elite idle rich.
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:04:47 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
wrote:
dxAce
David wrote:
> National Review is not an unbiased source of info. They represent the
> Elite idle rich.
And your sources represent who, 'tard boy? Heroes of Socialism? Or just the idle
clueless?
Take those meds.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Michael Lawson
--Mike L.
"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
news:th8gu0l90e8rpfnqe...@4ax.com...
MnMikew
> Elite idle rich.
And explain to us all how your "Buzzflash" is not unbiased? At least Luskin
can back up his facts. Which is waaaay more that can be said for you.
Typical liberal in denial.
RHF
http://www.sovmusic.ru/mp3/inter_de.mp3
DaviD - Fort Parlant .
http://www.sovmusic.ru/mp3/inter_f2.mp3
DAVID - Ondeggiamento Selvaggio del Braccio !
http://www.sovmusic.ru/mp3/intermus.mp3
Is this the Topic of the Day for the Political Cadre of the
Democrat Party of the USofA ? Keep Staying On Message Dude !
Hey - Lets All Sing the L'Internationale Together
http://www.communistvampires.com/music.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/INTERNAT.html
- all together now,
- - All Together Now.
- - - ALL TOGETHER NOW !
http://www.communistvampires.com/inter.mid
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/sounds/internationale.mid
TWO VERY REAL FACTS :
When Bill Clinton was President he 'claimed' Social Security was
BROKEN and gave Public Speeches and Campaigned to "Fix It".
When Al Gore was running for President be 'claimed' Social Security
was BROKEN and Campaigned to "Fix It". Plus "HE" was going to
put the Social Security Trust Fund in a LOCKED BOX to protect it.
THE CONCLUSION :
So what has changed now that President George "W" Bush also says
that Social Security is BROKEN and is Actual Working "Fix It" ? ? ?
MY BRAIN FOOD - Thomas Kemper "Big Fat Tuba" OktoberFest Lager
the liberal leftist talk and actions - makes one wonder ~ RHF
.
.
Brenda Ann
"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1105757522.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> So what has changed now that President George "W" Bush also says
> that Social Security is BROKEN and is Actual Working "Fix It" ? ? ?
How is having most of the workforce take money OUT of the Social Security
system going to FIX it?
There is no logic in it.
If you take money out of the system, it leaves a huge shortfall for those
coming up on retirement in the near term.
If you invest that money in the stock market, and we have another crash, as
has happened several times in my lifetime (though nothing quite like the BIG
crash), then you have a personal shortfall in the long term (i.e. you have
no Social Security to fall back on).
Even precious metals are no guarantee of solvency, I'm sure you remember the
gold crash back in the late 70's, where the price of gold dropped from the
mid $400 range to the low $200 range literally overnight...
RHF
The FIX for the Social Security Systems is very easy.
Remove the Income Cap Limit and allow the High Income
Earners to Pay 'their' Full and Complete "Fair Share"
since Social Security is a True Flat Tax on Payroll
for all Wage Earners.
After All - What's Fair and Equitable - Is Right and Just !
.
so say - my opinions stated as facts ~ RHF
.
.
;-p
Your plan would fix SS as it should have been from day ONE. Flat tax on
your income. This is not a political issue but a social issue and a
humanitarian issue. Allowed to invest SS money will help few increase
their money. Most of the new people that will depend on SSI aren't
qualified to act as investors and to hire advisors will defeat the
purpose(added cost).
Keep the politicians out of SSI. They usually screw up everything they
touch.
One thing for sure, messing with AARP is a bigger political issue than
the NRA ever thought of being.
;-p
RHF
.
Yes - The Social Security System is a Matter of Public Policy.
.
Whereas Income Taxes and other Federal Levies are a Matter
of Funding the Operations of the USofA's Federal Government.
.
The Social Security System is really a Social Engineering Endeavor
that is Rightly-or-Wrongly based on the General Socialist Collective
Concept of Each According to Their Ability 'for' Each According to
Their {Basic} Needs. {A Society Taking Care of It's Own In Need.}
.
So the First Question Is :
Should We (The USofA) Even Have a Social Security System ?
- I Would Say - YES !
.
Next the Second Question Is :
How Should We (The USofA) Fund and Pay For the Social Security System ?
- Currently We Pay through a Flat PayRoll Tax; that is Funded
by both the Employee and the Employer; that has a PayRoll Limit CAP.
This PayRoll "Limit" [CAP] Actual makes a High Salaried Employee
'cheaper' (by about 6%) for the Employer; and is a "Tax Gift" of about
+6% for the High Salaried Employee.
Therefore High Salaried Employee Do NOT Pay 'their' Fair Share [.]
.
Then the Third Question Is :
In the Future - How Should We (The USofA)
Fund and Pay For the Social Security System ?
The Number One Answer (#1) is Eliminate the PayRoll Tax "Limit" [CAP]
- Require Employers to Pay the Full Cost of Employment for their
High Salaried Employees.
- STOP the "Tax Gift" for High Salaried Employees.
- Require High Salaried Employee Employees to Subscribe To and Invest
in a Personal Retirement Account (PRA) with Every Dollar of their
"Tax Gift" Money.
NOTE - These High Salaried Employees can be allowed to Join the
Federal Employee's Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) which is the very same
Option that Members of Congress have and is available to Every Federal
Employee to Save-A-Little-Extra for their Own Retirement.
- At Retirement Age the High Salaried Employee Standardized Monthly
Personal Retirement Account Payment (LERO Methodology) would Off-Set
their Monthly Social Security Retirement Benefit Dollar for Dollar.
.
So the Fourth Question Is :
In the Future - Who Will pay Into the Social Security System ?
- Everyone Who Receives a Salary.
- For the Average Salaried Employee NOTHING Charges [.]
- - They Work and Pay into the Social Security System.
- - When they Retire they Receive a Monthly Social Security Check.
- For the Employer of High Salaried Employees they Pay Their
Fair Share of the Full Cost of the Social Security System.
- - This provides an Immediate Cash Infusion for the Social Security
System to Start Paying Down the Trust Fund Borrowing by that Congress
started in the 1970s.
- For the High Salaried Employee they are 'Required" to Pay their
"Fair Share" into a Personal Retirement Account (PRA) via the Federal
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
- - In-Fact these High Salaried Employees will Put Away Enough
and Earn Enough via the TSP then when they Retire.
- - Their TSP Income will Provide for Their Full Retirement Benefit
far Exceeding the Amount they could get from Social Security.
- - They will NOT Draw a Single Dollar from the Social Security System.
- - This Will Reduce the Distribution Load that will be placed
on the Social Security System in the Future.
.
WHAT THIS CHANGE DOES :
It Ain't Perfect - But It Does FIX the Social Security System
# 1 - It does NOT Require the Average Working American Citizen
to Pay Any More Into Social Security.
# 2 - It does NOT Change Any of the Average Working American
Citizen's Social Security Retirement Benefits.
.
.
UNQUESTIONABLY - Another Crazy Idea From The Mind Of A Mad Man ;-}
.
.
Blessed by God with Life and Progressive by Nature thru Living ~ RHF
[Just an Old Retired Blue Collar Union Member - Dosvedanya Tovarisch]
.
.
RH
As a matter of fact: Bush claims on Social Security should be compared
to claims on WMD
Molly Ivins
AUSTIN, Texas -- Cheez, I go to all this trouble not to call the
president of the United States a liar -- perhaps misinformed, did not
seem to know about, no one has told him, etc. -- and then he just comes
flat out with a whopper.
Drolly enough, he prefaced his latest with the unlikely statement, "As
a matter of fact..." before he proceeded to do battle against truth:
"...by the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to
retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you're 20 years old, in your
mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a
Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the
United States Congress has got the willingness to act now. And that's
what we're here to talk about, a system that will be bankrupt."
Let's try this again, slowly, for those who, like the president, seem
to be having difficulty with reality. Social Security will not be
bankrupt, will not be flat bust in 2042 or 2052 or even, as the
president has also claimed, by 2018. According to the deliberately
alarmist projections of the fund's trustees, it will have exhausted the
trust fund in 2042. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office, Social Security will be able to rely on the trust fund until
2052 and after that will still be able to pay 81 percent of scheduled
benefits.
And that's if no changes are made to the current system.
continues here (above - just the first few paragraphs):
http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID3780.htm