NYT: Bush Adviser Warns of Social Security Cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/politics/03social.html?ei=5094&en=e17907d682b7ee8f&hp=&ex=1102050000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=

Calling the current system of Social Security benefits unsustainable, a top economic adviser to President Bush on Thursday strongly implied that any overhaul of the system would have to include major cuts in guaranteed benefits for future retirees.

"Let me state clearly that there are no free lunches here," said N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, at a conference on tax policy here.

"The benefits now scheduled for future generations under current law are not sustainable given the projected path of payroll tax revenue," he added. "They are empty promises."

Mr. Mankiw's remarks suggested that President Bush's plan to let people put some of their Social Security taxes into "personal savings accounts" would have to be accompanied by changes in the current system of benefits.

and with any kind of fair return it would be worth 10 x what you put into it.

It was instituted by FDR in order to alleviate elderly poverty. And in that regard it has been an enormous success! It is a tax which is collected to pay out to CURRENT recipients. But the right wing has succeeded in redefining the debate so people THINK it is essentially a savings account, and get upset at what a low rate of "return" it has.

Don't buy the hype.

Social Security is the single economic program that relies directy upon a fairly-compensated and adequately-enfranchised labor base.

When we 'invest' in a savings (and loan) account, we're essentially expecting a return on LOANED money. Bonds and bond funds also rely upon loaned money and an interest rate. Such investments are direct: virtually every dollar (less administrative overheads) actually goes into the hands of the entity in which we 'invest,' whether that be consumers (consumer credit), homeowners (mortgages), public government (T-bills and municipal bonds), or businesses (bonds). While there's a secondary market, there's relatively little difference between the market price and the original issue.

When we 'invest' in equities ("ownership"), we're expecting a return based on an entitlement. Such investments are essentially indirect: since the vast majority of dollars actually go into the hands of some prior 'owner' of an equity interest (share of stock). The secondary market (i.e. the "stock market"), due to a "greater fool theory," consumes both the increase and the decrease in market capitalization. The purported beneficiaries of such investments (the business entities in which such capitalization is vested) have received only about 1% of the aggregate market capitalization of the equities traded on that market.

When we 'invest' in social security insurance, we're actually investing a trust in economic justice for labor. When workers receive an equitable share in the wealth they create, and the number of people enfranchised in the labor market matches the number both willing and able to work, the 'returns' on the investment of trust are likewise fair and equitable. When, however, the distribution of wealth (created by labor) is shifted to the owners instead of the laborers, we see a resulting decline in the health of our Social Security system.

In effect, Social Security has become a thermometer that measures the health of our system of economic justice.

Under the Busholini Regime, the labor base upon which Social security depends has shrunk and there has been a greater inequity in the share of the wealth labor creates.

Employment.
Compensation (of the bottom 95%).
Both have suffered under both Bush41 and Bush43 - and Reagan.
Indeed, these have been nearly as damaging to Social Security as the (so-called) "baby boom."

for 50 or 60 years. I'll take my chances on some other president, 10 years down the road to make these fuqing decisions. Stay the fuq out of it you neocon thieves!!!

And it has long been known that when the baby boomers all come to the age of retirement that the smaller population who would be at work, hence paying what goes out to the boomers, that there would be a money crunch just because of those factors.

Now?
Well, they SAY that those close to retirement 'will have to work longer'
but my question is: what if your company has a set retirement age? Oh lets say 65... and you can't get any Social Security benefits until you're, let's say, 70.
That's 5 years with no income
What then? Is this taken care of in the Social Security legislation?

years. A good solid return is maybe 7 or 8 percent a year, and TahitiNut's 65K was built up slowly over time, so the first couple of decades wouldn't have earned a whole hellava lot of interest.

I think people have very unrealistic expectations of how well they can do on their own investing. If investing on your own is so great, why did we need SS to begin with . . .

Let's see, stock crash, 1929.

The Great Depression 1930-1940.

Fewer than 20 percent save ANYTHING for retirement,

etc. etc.

sends money to your account. And that the amount sent figures into your pay.

The rest of us will have to be satisfied with peanut butter sandwiches, maybe bologna.

Hey, how about catfood?

You FUCKERS!!

What about all the fucking money we PAID??????????????

I bet this asshole never picked up a tab in his little life. That's what lobbyists are for.

from SS to make up for the tax cuts to the wealthy.

Ergo - benefits will have to be cut to make up for more military spending.

This is all part of the Grover Norquist plan - "Starve The Beast."

I think instead of "starve the beast," it's more a case of "hijack the beast's food right in front of his face, take the food for yourself, laugh at the beast's gullibility and lack of recourse, and then tell the beast to go eat cat food and freeze in the dark."

Un-F$#*ing-believable.

I've heard of "starve the beast" before, but your soundbite rings much truer.

That's the way these jackals think.

are happy now.

that the people who won't be retiring for 15 - 20 years are the ones who suffer benefit cuts. That's a long way away, and those people aren't really thinking about retirement too much. Fucking the actual retirees is political dynamite that would immediately bite the Republicans on the ass, so they won't do it. But fucking a group of people who won't figure out they got fucked until about 2025 or so -- that's the easy way, and bush has done nothing but take the easy way. The current retirees might even find the whole thing funny -- they get theirs, and those of us who gave it to them, get hosed.

It's the late and post baby boomers. Baby boomers had everything given to them, and screwed the system. Now they are wrecing the economy with their gluttonous self serving entitlement attitudes.

Republicans are the ones who believe in entitlement, the self-serving "more privileged than thou" class.

I don't know where some people got their education, but if it was in public school, it was at a lot of baby boomers' expense. Same goes for driving on public highways, and the military which is supposed to keep us safe.

Or maybe some people were educated in private schools, paid for by a rich daddy who kept his workers' wages low while slurping at the company trough. Something like CEOs pay rates have risen at an astronomical rate while the worker rates are actually falling.

Then FatCat takes his money, invests it in a company with an offshore headquarters, and pays no taxes so he can buy his big fat Hummer and waste fuel, so we need to send the poor kids to the Middle East to fight for oil.

Yeah, right. Baby boomers feel entitled? Bwahahahahaha!

The Social Security Insurance system is, like all insurance, a "pay as you go" system. People pay insurance premiums to pay for current beneficiaries of that insurance, whether it's automobile insurance, homeowners insurance, credit insurance, life insurance or Social Security insurance.

Since 1984, 'baby boomers' have been the FIRST generation to pay a surcharge (increased premiums to build a trust fund reserve) as a reserve against their own retirement. 'Baby boomers' are the most educated, most productive, and most widely working generation in history. Baby boomers are the first generation whose eligibility for benefits has been delayed for two years, from the age of 65 to the age of 67.

After the 'baby boomers' are dead and gone, Social Security premiums will plummet. Future generations are already receiving the benefit of over 25 years of excess premiums paid by baby boomers.

So, take that "blame the boomers " bullshit and shove it back up the bovine anal orifice from which it was emitted, please.

given to him.

We're playing by the rules, and it looks increasingly like were going to get waxed by the neo-cons.

You sound awfully right-wing in your "moral outrage?" Is it going to be "welfare queens" next? Or maybe Kerry banning the Bible?

so he or she is at least half right. Plus, I have to agree to some extent that the country has been moving in the wrong direction on many issue under boomer leadership.

Your generation did some good when you were young, but lately you have been electing some lousy leaders as a whole.

some bad.

Hoover and Rooseveld were of the same generation. So was Kennedy and Nixon.

Were things a lot better under Nixon? Or even Carter?

This reminds me of some grandmother somewhere talking about the "no good kids" or something.

I'm madder than hell about this Social Security planned ripoff. I've been self-employed almost all my working life, so I've paid for the employer's portion, also.

Please re-read my posts, both prior ones and #72. I am excoriating the Repub attitude of entitlement.

.

I can no longer afford to live into my seventies.

:scared:

I'm sure the Bushie plan will have some sort of mechanism so that those near retirement age will be "grandfathered" (sorry) in for about the same benefits they get now.

And the people just entering the workforce will be given the chance to invest retirement funds in the stock market, with better or worse results depending on their financial acumen along with just plain dumb luck.

It's people like my wife and I, who are about half-way through our expected working years, who are going to get the shaft on this one. We've been paying FICA taxes for the first half or our working life, and are soon going to be told that, "Hey, just so you know, you won't get any benefits when you retire. No free lunches and all that. But aren't you glad we told you now, so you have enough lead time to figure out your own retirement fund, since you now realize you won't be able to count on Outdated Liberal Big Government to bail you out then?"

:grr:

many many more retirees taking in roommates. :-(

errrr, wait, that won't work either. That would be "cohabitation" and the Pharisees tell me that's wrong.

when I retire there will be no money, I want my free lunch!:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

you mean the lunch you paid for since you were 17? it's the most expensive lunch of yor time...far from free.

to the seniors who voted for the chimp: hahahahahahahaha
to the rest: I feel for you.

The working class should just say no to taxes that benefit the rich. How about a tax strike. The rich have been doing it for years and they laugh about it. Remember the Presidents one-liner about the rich and taxes?

In some fashion based on the Tea Party from days of yore. Privatizing social security is part of the final solution, as far as I am concerned -- getting rid of the middle class and slamming it's doors permanently. Bring in immigrants and create an underclass of laborers, destroy organized labor, send the less fortunate to war as cannon fodder, lock up petty thieves and ANYONE without the money to buy justice-- it is class warfare if ever there was such a thing.
And we are supposed to trust Bushie's Wall Street buds, in lieu of our pooled
social insurance? Uh, yeah, how gullible are we going to let them think we are?

accomplished in Uzbekastan, (New Elections YEAH for the people) we should hang our heads in shame. These people were out in the freezing rain for more than a week. Companies were giving their employees time off (never would happen here because of that almighty dollar).

If we would have organized in 2000, I wonder what woulda, coulda, shoulda instead of this freaking nightmare we appear to be a part of. I wonder if our history would have changed as far as 9/11?????? I like to think it would have, as I'm sure all of you would, as well as the war in Iraq.

veterinarian.

On a thread that is anything but funny. "Free Lunch?" What fucking unmitigated gall. MonkeyNuts and his fellow shit throwers need to be marched to the Hague.

way before this...:-(

Veterinarians have become one of the most expensive, biggest mark-up artists in all history!

Invariably they're charging over $1- a pill for something that costs them literally pennies! Bute, for example, a staple needed for older horses and older large breed dogs for joint & pain relief; simple muscle relaxants, and most especially Antibiotics! Expensive! That's why the online vet supply places have prospered, but they're still not near as cheap as the vet's used to be just a few years ago. Right along with they have to call your vet anyhow to get a prescription and approval to even sell your pet's needed medication -- they're all in it together.
I've rescued at least one feral kitten each year, and of course after I gentle them & get them used to human company, we've bonded and they stay with me (yep, we have a ton of cats, all neutered but not all have shots. When looking for a rental, since we're relocating, I'd list the 2 show dogs first, then state vaguely 'a few cats' :( I don't LIKE doing that... but I'm NOT disposing a single one. Lucky I happen to have 3 Tuxedo cats so they may mistake one for another :>
It's really much easier to rescue a tame kitten, you don't have to invest the (albeit little - takes about 3 days for me to tame a feral kitten, but still long enough to imprint) time to get them ready to meet and make a good impression on prospective owners.
I still worry nights if they ever found good homes, and if they would be cherished instead of disposed of. I've tried to keep track, but it seems to be discouraged.

Gah. Sorry to ramble. Anyhow...

Vets are now reaping the full benefits of their gravy train and tough luck if you have a beloved pet and can't afford the cost.

Slap me harder, baby. USA USA USA!!!!!!!

Okay, if you want :).

:o

Evil, greedy bastards.

have a free lunch and using our tax money to get it too

paid higher rates get screwed because Bush finds it more politically possible.

n/t

:scared:

...and then marry someone who doesn't have a pension so he/she gets it too. Get it while you can.

war will get off their butts now!!

...cut taxes to the point government programs can't be funded and then cut the benefits. Paul Krugman pointed this out over a year ago...."starve the beast"....the beast primarily being SS and Medicare.

What they always knew in the long run!!!

I can't wait to see how much the American people will take when all these Republicans destroy social Security and Medicare!!! and then still all the retirement money from Americans!!!

There are no free lunches here these people worked hard for these benefits!!!

and I've been saying for years that we're going to get screwed when we retire. We've both paid into Social Security since we were 16 (we're 56 and 57)and my husband voted for this jackass. It'll give me great pleasure to say "I told you so", but then I'll have to deal with living on a shoestring. Good thing I already know how to do that.

The gall of these people knows no end. I still think most boomers are in denial that this won't happen to them, but some of them are starting to think about it. My advice is NEVER wait until you're 65 or 66 or later to collect. Get the money immediately upon turning 62 and if you don't need it, bank it.

Problem is they have talked about changing the ages of eligibility too, so the 62 option may not be there when they are done with their mission of killing Soc. Sec. & Medicare.

What better way to finish off their 20 year plan than to kill Soc. Sec. & Medicare because of a pre-emptive war and record debt! Thanks to the Bush regime!

What a great future to leave our children and grandchildren.

You do know that "Healthy Forests" clears mature trees and leaves the highly flamable undergrowth, don't you?

These guys to everything bass-ackwards.

our grandchildren...IF we are alive! :grr:

n/t

Back under St. Reagan when Greenspan last "fixed" Social Security, what was the current withholding rate? Few people seem to recall that "extra" withholdings have been made over our working lifetimes in order to insure a surplus from which to pay the boomers' increased demand.

Seems to me that Bush took our Social Security and gave it to his base: the Haves and the Have Mores.

over time.

www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/payroll

According to this table, the withholding rate for just Social Security in 1984 was 10.8% (split btw employee/employer) and it stepped up to the current 12.3%. So, we have been paying a 1.5% premium on top of the pre-existing rate to insure that this day - the day they tell us there's no free lunch - would never come.

Working people should demand a 1-1/2 percent payroll tax deduction immediately... payable retroactively. After all, it's your money and george said he thinks you should keep it.

Now, remember that Social Security Insurance is designed to pay current benefits from current receipts (premiums, aka "payroll taxes"). Thus, this chart would ideally show very small bars, indicating that collections match disbursements. But it doesn't, ever since 1984 when it was decided (under the Raygun Regime) to increase 'payroll taxes' to create a surplus (reserve) in the Trust Fund. The premiums paid since 1984 have averaged about 20% more than needed to pay the current beneficiaries.

One other thing deserves note. Notice the decline between 1989 and 1993? That's the Bush41 Regime's decimation of the working class. Notice the decline since 2000? That's the Bush43 Regime's decimation of the working class.

When more people are working for fair wages, Social Security receipts go up. When the minimum wage goes up, Social Security receipts go up. When wages go down, Social Security receipts go down. When fewer people are working, Social Security receipts go down.

The best way to make Social Security healthy is to enfranchise working people at fair wages! Republican class warfare hurts Social Security.


Postscript: Notice the surge beginning in 1966? That corresponds to 'baby boomers' entering the work force, many college-educated. No generation has contributed MORE to Social Security than the 'baby boomers'!

that was spent as soon as they got their grubby hands on the cash. That 'reserve' is nothing more than a bunch of paper IOU's. The reserve Greensplat pushed under Reagan was nothing more than a cleverly disguised tax increase.

I think its time to call these IOU's, right now. Take deeds on federal land they are reserving for the corporations benefit. Yep, why don't we set-up toll booths on the interstates and start levying our own taxes, for our benefit. It was our money that paid for the interstates anyway.

If the Fed goes bust, we need to declare ownership for those properties before the scavengers from overseas get a claim. Don't forget the water rights and mineral rights too.

People who voted the prince schmuck in will get exactly what they deserve. The rest of us who didn't are fucked. :mad:

Enjoy your big fat tax cuts assholes! Meanwhile... people I know will starve.

I won't even ask for a free lunch, if you:

1. Return everything, penny for penny, that was 'AUTOMATICALLY' deducted from my pay check.

2. You pay me the investment interest which may have accumulated in an S+P Fund, cumulatively since 1966.

3. Then you can lick the vinegar off the plate!


:crazy:

I won't even ASK for any interest. Greg, just have your Lord and Savior boosh** cut me a check for everything I've put into it for 35+ years, forget asking for any tax on it (since I've already paid it) and I'll call it even and I'll take my chances.

And, by the way Greg, stuff this "free lunch" bullshit up your ass. :grr:

1966. How much was that--maybe 500 dollars if you started out at the princely sum of 10K in 1966?

So you can't take the total you've paid in now (let's say, 100k), and pretend like you had 100k invested the first year you paid in.

The interest would only be on that 5 percent you put in every year and what you had put in before. Since wages were a lot lower back then, I'm guessing you wouldn't have nearly the "huge" nest egg you're envisoning in your mind.

Also, mutual funds weren't very common until the last 25 years or so, and they used to charge very high commissions, so, again, using the SP returns is unrealistic.

The government hates competition

I can only hope that these treasonous bastards pay dearly for what they have done. Many smart, blue, retirement age people out there. :)

As far as the same demographic that voted for Bush, you will soon learn the error of your ways. Thanks for f**cking everyone else.

Assholes.

* 2004 2nd debate

I THINK THAT ACCORDING TO THEIR LIVELIHOOD--MOSTLY THAT OF WAR PROFITEEGING--I AM ENTITLED TO SAY THAT THE WHOLE DASTARDLY GENERATION OF BUSHES HAS BEEN ON A FREE LUNCH SINCE THE TIMES OF PRESCOTT BUSH AND HIS FATHER IN LAW GEORGE WALKER.

the money you've paid into the system.

This is so infuriating! Think anout dimbulb alone, he has gotten more taxpayer money over his life for doing NOTHING than any human being. In the case of this pResidency he has been a paid failure! :grr:

">

I can't find a link for this but got it by doing a Google groups search for Jonathan Chait, LAT:

On Social Security, Bush was just as evasive. Here, again, the tiny
minority of people who closely follow this understood his code words.
He wants to divert Social Security taxes into private accounts.
Because those taxes pay for the benefits of current retirees, his plan
would require cutting benefits or driving the national debt even
higher.

Bush, of course, went to great pains to distance himself from these
unpleasant facts. In 2001, he appointed a commission that proposed
three plans to partly privatize Social Security, but he declined to
embrace the panel's findings. A few weeks before the election, a New
York Times Magazine story reported that Bush told GOP donors he
planned to push privatization after the election. John Kerry's
campaign circulated a nonpartisan study showing what the benefit cuts
in one of the commission's plans would entail. Bush's spokesman
dismissed the charge that he favored privatization or benefit-cutting
as a "false, baseless attack."

just as guilty....we all knew this was the "plan"...who is kidding who.

This country is trying to save it's ass....cut entitlements...increase taxes....and somehow save us from default into bankruptcy.

Clinton gave bush a $5 trillion surplus....he gave it away in tax cuts..and now will cut soc sec that "could have been" aided by that very same $$$$$ he gave away to the rich.

there are your "values"..........

this.

:-(

with less and less revenue (by design coming in) and more imporatamt things like feeding the military industrial complex and its insatiable appetite for empire and conquest and new weapons of mass destruction. You can never grow the military industrial complex large enough as it needs to be grossly expanded and can be afforded while social programs never can be afforded. So sayeth the lord of the reich and its dogma. Bow and believe blindly.

around the world, so, somebody's gonna pay, and it looks like Social Security recipients will be at the top of the list.

Bush never wanted for nothing. Stole our surplus (tax payers) gave it to the rich, and then gave them a tax break. Who in their right mind would vote for an idiot like Bush?:kick:

I was on the highway yesterday and saw some beat-up old piece-of-shit Ford pinto are something like that with a Bush/Cheney bumpersticker. I thought, well, at least they're not driving some big black military-type of SUV like most of them, but geez, this guy is really, really going to be NEEDING his SS. I mean, most of us will not be able to get by without it. What are these people thinking?

Hmmmmm, me thinks We the People have a case here!:think: :grr:

and my pension is 1/3 what I used to make. (I'm not old enough for social security.) At the same time the cost of health insurance went up and the cost of drugs. One small example: just ordered 2 drugs--when I was employed picking them up from the pharmacy cost me $20, now they cost me $120.

Excuse me. WTF.

When I've called to complain to all the worker bees at the drug company, the pharmacy, the place from which I retired they all go gee whiz. None of them get it. Then, I tell them that a friend of mind just moved to England, still US citizen, free health care and free drugs. The worker bee goes silent. I'm sure they voted repug. They are so uneducated, untraveled, unknowing.

What is wrong with this country? (Rhetorical question)

then maybe they'll wake up. But isn't that always how America operates these days? They wait until it's too late before they do something about a looming problem or until it affects them personally.

My 90+ year-old aunt moved to Slovakia because she gets free health care, free unlimited transportation on their public transportation system, and her social security check goes much, much farther for the necessities of life.

See, under that doctrine, corporations have rights, too. They have the right to run the way they want to run- even if they screw the public in the process.

End corporate personhood, cap the pay of CEOs and the various corporate Boards of Directors, yank ALL corporate "rights" and replace them with priveleges, and revoke corporate charters left and right if so much as one single actual human being is harmed in their quest for the almighty Profit.

Never gonna happen, because too many people don't understand what the doctrine of corporate personhood has done.

I saw on either 60 Minutes or Nightline a story regarding getting meds from Canada and how our Government was making it illegal because they "supposedly" could not regulate it. (Which is a bunch of bull because they make the drugs in the U.S., after the FDA okays the drug after years of research, then the drug is sold to the Canadian pharmacies just like they are to the U.S.; however, they charge us more).

Sorry, got off my point. They were discussing this and someone stated that you can actually call the company that makes the drug(s) you are taking, tell them your situation of hardship, and they will help you get your drugs at a more affordable price and possibly free.

Seriously! I would try to get the manufacturers of the drugs you take (it will say on your prescription bottle what company makes that particular drug) phone number on line. If you cannot get their number that way, get it from the drug store.

I'm lucky that my husband has a prescription card and we pay 15-20-35 depending on the drugs, so I have not called to see if this is true. You won't lose anything by trying and think about it, all they can say is no.

Give it a try, and if you do, let us all know how it went.

Good luck.

for the suggestion. I just find this whole thing amazing. To now make 1/3 of what I used to make and yet pay 6 times more for something is shocking. What about people who have less than me?

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/mankiw.html

Under Columns and Talks, I found Not a Hooverville in Sight NYT 8/22/04 pretty much wraps up his rosy outlook.

PAYS THE TAB...YET WERE NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN SMELL THE LUNCH... lmao... what a bitch... I am so tired of this. Hopeless. I need to invest in something over seas.
I am not putting my money into america anymore.

n

the one I've been paying for my whole life. Since the SS tax has been used to shore up the general fund all these years it's only fair that the money be repaid from the general revenues and not be strictly dependent on future contributions from the payroll tax only. The sooner we start collecting the less pain for future generations.

Always has been. Just like his plan to go to war with Iraq, this was always on the agenda.

Watch for more talk about the so-called unsustainability of Social Security as the lying bastards attempt to steal a lifetime of SSI contributions out from under us.

and will go for broke. it's always been their plan.

the money - now they are trying to make it appear legitimate.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

certainly it's some right-wing, piece of shit website.

It is very common information if you bother to read any of the ss issues. BUT if you just want to do the math yourself try this:

Median income 40,000 at 15.3% (7.65 on employee and employer) is 6,120 per year times 3.5 = 21,420 less 30% SS administration overhead = $14,994. Now ask anybody drawing ss how much they are getting per year!

OR you can research the issue. This 3.5 has been talked about all over the place, whether its cnn, fox, abc, or whatever.

Do some RESEARCH!!

is presenting faulty research from right-wing sites.

Now, YOU made the claim, the onus is on YOU to provide a link to the facts. That's the way it works here on DU, pal.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/congressional/keypoints/ss-trouble.html

Right wing? its called facts! It does not take a rocket scientist to do simple math using median wages, ss tax rates, overhead factors, and comparing it to what people are getting.

I used a simple formula BUT median wage is too high because it is weighted by those earning more than 85,000. Also I included the 1.65 medicare tax and should not have, so actually simple math would tell me this: median perhaps 35,000 times 12% (6% times 2) times 3.5 is 14,700 less ss overhead.

Look, this ponzi scheme cannot continue. For 50 years we have spent the money collected on other programs. Now we have a problem!

The one he was so ruthlessly savaged for during the 2000 campaign?

He promised he wouldn't use SS monies for other budgetary purposes.

Your buddy George W. promised the same thing. But of course you realize he broke that promise and has been raiding SS funds since his first budget.

Bite me.

That's completely false. It's UNDER 1%. Yes, SS is THAT CHEAP to administer. (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_socialsecurity_socsecfaq)

Don't swallow the right-wing talking points so easily.

see my above post about 3.3 people with the ss link.

Yes, thank you! Now I see the light!

Cato is as biased as they come. The fact is, administrative overhead for PRIVATE mutual funds is up around 30%. Social Security's overhead IS less than 1% and you can just eat it.

BTW - I don't see ANYTHING on your Cato link that says SS has a 30% overhead. You're blowing smoke, dude.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that you had to register with that handle!

BUAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Ooooh you are just infatuated with me now, aren't you?

And I'm not even a communist, it's just an old nickname from college that had nothing to do with Leon Trotsky.

What a "moran." Go back to FR.

Indeed these are all in the Trustee's Report that is filed every year.

The error in the 3 number going to 2 is that it means nothing

Social Security is about much more than old age payments - the DI portion is not expected to get worse, so the decrease in working to retired is mitigated.

The only number of interest is the Soc Sec Actuaries projection - with no problem to 2042 (2052 based on the GAO projection)

unless you call SS redeeming a few gov bonds each year - selling assets - beginning in 2018 - a bad thing - because the way the gov will get the dollars to pay off that bond will be to issue a new bond in the capital markets -

or in increase the tax on the rich

the latter would mean the rich are paying back the money they stole from Soc Sec under Bush so Bush could cut their taxes.

Finance SS in some other manner. Doing away with it is a choice based on ideology. We always have enough to continue to spend on new nuclear weapons, star wars, or whatever they want (while no one on earth will even bother trying to catch up on military spending with the US.) Most countries now have opted for a society. Those that haven't like a North Korea don't really have the means to be any kind of military threat. Just take a couple of percentages away from defense and we could probably have a few benefits for our citizens like the rest of the industrialized world while still outpacing the next several countries combined in defense outlay.

see my above post about 3.3 people with the ss link.

enjoy your stay :hi:

And don't let the door hit you in the...oh nevermind

*CLANG

bring out your dead!

*CLANG

:hi:

try this lnk.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/congressional/keypoints/ss-trouble.html

And before SS, it was 1 in 3. That's what you want to go back to.

... foul, perverted, mendacious, psychotic, degenerate, perfidious, unctuous, sociopathic, asinine piece of ...





... maggot bait.

reasoning...so those who didn`t make hundreds of thousands just might as well just fuck`n blow their brains out if they can ever retire. work till ya drop dead??????? take your bullshit somewhere else..............

>>Simply increasing the $85,000 tax cap on earnings to say 1 million would be labeled nothing more than an income tax rate increase and would not be sellable<<

It would be sellable to the 98.5% of Americans whose benefits will be cut.

It wouldn't be sellable to the 1.5% of Americans who earn more than $1 million. But according to the Repugs majority rules, so they can go to hell.

BUT the rich - because SS is progressive and gives less benefit to the dollars earned at the top - get screwed a bit.


But it is their turn - and they do get a benefit - indeed an increased benefit for every dollar earned.

I do not see why this can not be sold.

Some skip noon meals and skimp on groceries.

the railroad retirement fund is doing quite well. if anyone is interested in how that program is funded do some research on why the fund is covering more retires than than their are current employees.

I guess I'm pessimistic about about how long/far wage deflation will go.

But I'm also pessimistic that they will probably bump up the retirement age before I ever collect, and I don't expect to live too far past 70.

Still think medicare needs a lot more fixing than SS, it will have passed SS+Defense by 2042 if they don't fix it.

The projections show SS to be fully funded till app. 2042. By 2042, the Boomer generation will be dying off in droves, relieving the pressure on the wage earners, which will include the Baby Boomlet at the height of their earning capacity.

The one thing that can negatively effect the projection is diverting a substantial portion of the SS funding with the proposed self-investment scheme, which does nothing but speculatively pump money into the stock market with a strong possibility of overheating the market, when hundreds of millions are being invested by people who don't know what the hell they are doing.

This is a catastrophe.

it is fully funded...i`ll be long dead by then. 42 will be the last of the boomers. maybe by then we will have a decent society so my children can retire.....

Direct result of tax cuts. Says it all. Remind all of those who voted for the *. The majority of those who recieved those tax cuts were not depending on their ss. Plan of action, letters to the editors quoting the NYT article especially the quote about no free lunch.

Nothing that comes out of these people's mouths is the truth. Remember the actuary who was threatened with being fired if he spoke the truth of what the revised Medicare plan would cost?

All they will do, when the money runs short, is raise the retirement age to 70, then 72, then 74, et cetera. We're just drones, that's all.

I'm sure bush has all sorts of plans in mind to get rid of us, one way or the other.

"starve the beast," that's a nice phrase :eyes: , especially when you consider that it's the retirees of this country whom they really mean as "the beast."

they want to cut much more deeply.

A age increase from 67 to 70 means all is well because those retiring at 62 then get only 70% of the benefit they would have gotton at 62 if the retirement age had stayed at Reagan's 67 (we are in a transition now under current law from 65 to 67).

The idea is to do a massive cut in SS benefits, telling you that great returns in the stock market will make up for it - thereby releasing more monies back to the rich (this happens because of the progressive nature of the SS benefit formula - the first 10000 earned each year gets a much larger benefit than the 10,000 from 80,000 to the new cap of 90,000 - indeed removing the cap and giving the rich a benefit on every dollar they earn - under the current SS benefit formula - screws the rich so well that the overall payroll tax could come down!)

unless of course life expectancy is by medical miracle increased by 25 years in the next decade.

This is from the GOP leadership. In other news, the sky is blue.

before we are forced to withdraw.

But he can't come up with the money to pay for my SS benefits???

FUCK YOU CHIMP!!!!

One month to date since the election was "decided" and the hits just keep on coming! Nighty-night, America!!

The Social Security system is one of the great administrative bargains in history, with tiny overhead costs, but creating tens of millions of additional accounts managed by Wall Street will cost billions of dollars of fees paid to private firms such as Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan and other less famous firms. But that is not a problem for Mr. Bush -- indeed, it is the point, and also explains why Wall Street backed Mr. Bush's reelection effort with such enthusiasm.

The current Social Security system grew out of the stock market crash of 1929 and the resulting economic collapse. It is ludicrous to create a new system dependant on the very economic forces that made the program necessary in the first place. America's priority should be ensuring that people who worked hard their whole life don't spend their twilight years living in poverty.

Click here to take action: http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/current_actions.cfm?afccode=CCC001

Would they?

Put your hats on. Start Looking at what we got.
We have got to find a plan to de-misconstruct these deceptions.

Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw was appointed by the President and sworn into office as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers on May 29, 2003.

Dr. Mankiw is on leave from Harvard University where he is Professor of Economics. As a student, he studied economics at Princeton University and MIT. As a teacher, he has taught macroeconomics, microeconomics, statistics, and principles of economies. He even spent one summer long ago as a sailing instructor on Long Beach Island.

Dr. Mankiw lives in Wellesley, Massachusetts ...

Quite clearly, Mankiw, like the master he serves/worships, is out of touch.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/mankiwbio.html

everyone who voted for * is happy now! :grr:

I'll never receive social security. I'll have to pay it, but I won't see a penny.

If that is the way Congress wants to go.

There are many ways to fix the 2042 problem

Bush's way is the worst way for Seniors and the best for the rich.

And as long as the age requirement for receiving SS isn't raised. I was born in 1977 so in 2042, I'll be 65.

benefits compared to the Reagan retirement age of 67 benefits, will be 70% of those benefits.

Raising the retirement age to 70 solves everything - but it does not give the rich more money.

So we have the Bush plan.

bears out. And neither will a majority of my peers. With the current obesity epidemic, I would not be surprised to see an actual reduction in longevity in the US because of the Boomer generation. We're still within spitting distance of "three-score years and ten". Most will not see 90.

The insolvency issue is nothing more than a scare tactic, trying to stampede a terror-stricken change that will not be reversible once it is enacted.

Republicans have been against SS since the thirties, when there were 40 workers supporting each retiree. Obviously, they weren't worried about insolvency then. The economics has nothing to do with it.

I didn't really care for food and shelter anyway, who needs that crap?

I'd rather innocent people died overseas..that's what being a "compassionate conservative" is all about.

Maybe he will run it on his program?

I know freepers were all voting for SS benefit cuts when they voted for Shrub. I'd think they'd all be ecstatic about this news.

for farm subsidies and big business.

Why don't you just tell the truth and let the whole country know that Bush burned a HUGE DEFICIT HOLE and there is no money left in the Federal till! And you won't go to your wealthy corporate contributors for money because they'll just cut you off at the tit so instead you ding the poor and the disadvantaged!!!

......................Free lunch? FUCK YOU!

.........they're just skimming it off just so they can put it in their own pockets for their own "free lunches".

Hey Greg, what the fuck do you call those (unnecessary) Bush tax-cuts that significantly benefited the wealthy? Sounds like a lot of "free lunches" to me.

And where are all of those jobs those "stimulative" tax-cuts were supposed to provide? Isn't the regime still running a jobs deficit, along with the record fiscal deficits?

Could this guy be any more disingenuous? Sycophant.

Have you noticed not one politician has ever suggested taking the cap off of payroll taxes?

As you know, after about $85,000 per year, you don't pay witholding taxes. Now, why not switch this around???

I've always advocated eliminating witholding taxes on the first $10,000 of every employees income for the employers also, and taking off the cap. That way, a slug making $1,000,000 a year pays Social Security on all of it, except the first $10,000.

While more information is definitely needed, it appears, based on IRS date, that in fact, such a change would be revenue neutral.

Can you imagine the impact on the economy when the working classes, and the companies they work for, had that money in their pockets.

And it only impacts people who work, so the GOP can't attack it as more welfare for lazy folks.

Bushspeak for "WE HAVE OTHER PRIORITIES FOR USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS."

The one on bugmenot.com is not working. And I don't want to register.

:) :) :)

And the younguns will believe that we, who have paid into it all of our workuing live, and yes, we DID work, and worked hard, are merely seeking a "free lunch" and some of them younguns have said that to me.

of course what can we expect from a liar. He also said no draft and I felt a breeze when he said that. I guess we will watch while he starves out the people over 65 and murders ever one 18 to 45 in his wars, WHATS LEFT

Bushwala and Rove have bamBOOZLEd the country. That is what you get
for dumbing down the masses. People have replaced imagination
with claymation, and their braynes r moulded by the SLYFOX NEWS NET.

Quite sacagious, K Rove. The people will never get pissed until they
see their checks cut and that wont happen till bout twenty yrs down the road. They will have raided the system completely by then and
when peeps start realizing the price for their stupidity and
lack of intellectual fibre, it will be too late.

And....by then they will tell the electronic machines to vote in the
democrat and they can hide for a while while the dems take the hit and they start blaming it on them cuz they are in power.

People deserve what they get for being so stupid and ambivilant about
this stuff now. Duhhh....I am stoopid, I vote for dubs cuz he is
the man.....

Forget your soc. sec. it is history. By the way, they call it an
entitlement because that way it sounds like a hand out or free lunch
or whatever, but, as some have already started to figure out,
it is their money they paid.

By the way, way, I expect the Rovemeister to start trying to cap
medicare contributions soon, since his rich cats are taking quite
a hit as opposed to ss which is capped at an inc. level of 87k, which
means, the more you make over that fig. the less percentage of income you contribute. As a little guy, you always pay the max,
but these guys who got the biggest tax cut, claim they pay a larger
bracket, but you are right up their with the richest ones because
their free lunch ss payment gets down to a well below one percent, the more they make. SO WAHKE UP !!!!!!

we would have enough. Already have about 80 some grand in this pig.

if we lose the social security system do politicians lose their Golden Fleece Retirement Plan? Seems only fair in retirement we all dine on the same cat food.

Just like we TOLD everyone that going into Iraq wasn't going to be a short trip punctuated by tossed rose petals and parades in the US "Liberators" honor.

So far, we've liberated thousands, TENS of thousands of Iraqi's from their own lives, not to mention our own men and women. But that's about the sum total of our little venture into a preemptive invasion of a sovereign country "to protect Saddam Hussein's poor, downtrodden people"
and there are many who still do not see the horrible hypocrisy in that last point.

Well? It's certain for once they can't blame Clinton on this one! but Oh! they'll try!

To what degree is the Bush administration subject to contract law? Specifically with regard to Social Security, I think we all have receipts for amounts paid, and what's been promised is a matter of public record. But my question is a bit more broad than that. To what degree can the Bush administration be held accountable for fiscal mismanagement (at least!) under standard contract law? I'm not sure, but I'm trying to research the matter. Anyone have any thoughts?

The talk of ending the death tax for millionaires.

No free lunch for common folk who've paid in all their life, but a free lunch for Bush's Halliburton friends.

what is this man trying to do? What is his vision for American society and the well-being of its people? Unemployment is rampant, many are simply living pay check to pay check and haven't the financial resources to build investment portfolios or large 401K's. Their focus must be providing for the present and they can only hope to some day address their future financial needs. Countless folks live entirely on their social security check now and for many, that is as good as it will get at retirement. What with the anemic condition of the stock market in the last few years, if SS payments are cut to say, half of the current scale, is it realistic to believe people earning low to median salaries can make up the difference or hope to surpass the current SS payment scale by investing a portion of their SS taxes? It is a gamble at best and we don't control the rate of return. It is also possible a retiree might outlive the distribution of this investment and be left with only the reduced SS payment.

Which brings me back to my original question. Why would Bush choose to implement sweeping change that quite possibly would undermine the financial stability of retiree's? Should he not be the advocate for legislation that provides for our welfare and dignity in old age? Does the chance of an impoverished elder citizenry not bother him? Does he just not give a shit?

FUCK YOU.

Effective immediately I will no longer be paying into a social security system that yields no trust for me when it's my turn.

Canada is looking better and better all the time . . .

The hubris of these clowns is a wonder to behold. That 51% mandate will be the death of their power or perhaps all of us. How many sacred cows do they think they can slaughter before people notice? Lets see: pushing their radical christofascist social agenda, destroying SS, war with Iran, full bore environmental rape, they are full of themselves. Of course, WE have known this, but exercise of the vaunted mandate just might bring this tidal wave of shit to the attention of those who have been foxed for far too long. Alternatively if the worm does not turn we will definitively know that it's time to get out of Dodge or consider other courses of action.

Perhaps Nader will be proven right, that thing will have to get super bad before real change can be effected.