5 Things Everybody needs to know about Social Security

1. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't held in worthless IOU's as some Conservative Commentators have claimed. It is held in Government Bonds, the same as are held by individuals and corporations and nations throughout the world. Any economist will tell you that these sorts of bonds are usually an extremely safe investment.

2. Why wouldn't the general fund pay back the debts owed to the trust fund? What kind of global financial consequences would result if the United States just decided to not pay it's bills? Why wouldn't we have the money to pay our bills (hint, the Bush Tax Cuts).

3. Privatization would vastly increase the amount of bureaucracy. Currently less than 1% of the Social Security income is siphoned off to pay to run the program. Most analysts believe the costs of running a private accounts system will require around 15 to 20 percent of the income.

4. In the next 75 years the Social Security Program faces a budgetary shortfall of $3.7 Trillion. In the next 75 years, the Bush Tax cuts, if made permanent, will cost the Treasury $11.6 Trillion.

5. Do the people who claim to want to save Social Security like Social Security? Do they think it is a good program? We get a hint of this from the Wherner Memo of last week in Karl Rove's Deputy stated, "For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country." Six decades ago Conservatives hated Social Security and tried to keep it from being passed. And now they think they can finally win, but they aren't willing to actually debate the issue. They want to pretend to save Social Security while sticking the knife in it's back. OK that was a bad metaphor but you get the point.

I think it's desperately important that we win the debate on Social Security. Social Security has been one Liberal Democratic Program that has been enormously successful, and reasonably popular. If the Republicans can kill it, how much further will they go at transforming America back into the United States of William McKinley? What would be next?

Cribbed a lot of this from Talking Points Memo which has been very very good on this issue ( http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com ).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

insure that Social Security is not destroyed by the bush regime and it's Reich wing allies in congress.
I say everything and anything in a literal sense because the bush regime is going to do the same.
They will stop at absolutely nothing to win this war on the American People.
We must mobilize and join forces with who ever and what ever is willing to help stop this force of evil.

WE CAN NOT SIT BY AND ALLOW THIS CRIME AGAINST AMERICA TO HAPPEN.

The Norquist Nazis are "on the march" and "turning the corner", "moving forward".

:puke:

not on this issue, anyway. That's why all the lies and deceptions--if we can get the lies out of the peoples eyes, they won't have much of a chance.

Dems won't cave to a social security bill as they did with the meaningless prescription bill (remember the debate? I'm signing because it is at least something). I suspect the dems will be unanimous against any Bush bill and enough repubs will be on board with them.

It's hard to say, there is already one representative (from Florida) who is definately on Bush's side (he co-sponsered a bill on the subject, but his name escapes me). But I think you are right, it's a tougher sell than the Bushies would like you to think it is--lots of Republicans aren't sure about it.

i.e., can not be sold in the open market (only redeemable by the US treasury and its willingness/ability just might not be there since the Repukes seem willing to gut SS and the treasury's ability isn't all that good because of the tax cuts). Should this assessment be valid, this unwillingness/inability to redeem those non-negotiable bonds would be such a small price to pay for having W as president and being made safe.

You know why we have a trust fund? It's because back under Reagan, they pushed through a payroll tax increase on the working class of America in order to save social security. But then after making workers pay more in social security, they are now prepared to say to America's workers, hey we used that money to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy, so we can't afford to pay the trust fund back.

Not the greatest of messages.

of the refunding of the social security system, a tax scheme in which a single taxpayer with more than $20,000 taxable income was sending Uncle Sam more than 35% of each marginal dollar whereas those ballplayers and all others earning even millions of dollars were sending Uncle Sam only 28% of each marginal dollar. Now Greespan is saying, in effect, that that $20,000 a year schmuck will have to have his promised social security benefits cut to pay for tax cuts that mostly benefit the most affluent, tax cuts which he supported. These actions by Greenspan, when viewed holistically, are surely among the most devious, diabolical, cynical, and despicable betrayals of the common people by a politican in our history IMNSHO, but then, who care what a solitary person thinks?

Can't sell them on open market since the capital markets are for financing the tax cut for the rich and that alone.

Or so the GOP has set things up for now.

Just because i think this is important.