Social Security

[CousinIT]

Wall Street billionaires―who own local FOX TV stations across the country―are trying to undermine the most successful social insurance program in our country’s history. They want you to believe that Social Security is going broke. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Contrary to the billionaires' greed-driven claims of Social Security "going broke" and needing to be privatized or eliminated, here is what we will see in the upcoming Social Security Trustees Report:

Social Security has a large and growing surplus―$2.9 trillion today, and a projected $2.95 trillion next year;

Social Security is extremely affordable with less than one penny of every dollar spent on administrative costs;

It can pay out ALL benefits owed for approximately the next one-and-a-half decades (until 2034) and 77% of benefits owed after that;

With modest legislative increases (asking the wealthy to pay their fair share) we can expand benefits for millions of Americans well beyond 2034

That’s the real story about Social Security that Wall Street billionaires and their local news outlets are trying to bury so YOU will support drastic cuts to this vital social program.

Don't buy the billionaires' scaremongering! VOTE in November ONLY for those candidates (Democrats) who will PRESERVE Social Security and work to EXPAND its benefits -- not cut social security benefits in ANY way -- or privatize social security.

Here is an article that proposes to EXPAND Social Security benefits while also proposing several ways to deal with the shortfall:

How to Keep Social Security Secure
Here’s a plan that eliminates the long-term shortfall in its finances and updates the system for the 21st century.
http://prospect.org/article/how-keep-social-security-secure

To keep up with what's going on with Social Security (Republicans want to cut/gut/privatize the program and the media only presents billionaire propaganda designed to coerce you to supporting those COMPLETELY unnecessary cuts) follow @SSWorks on Twitter or the web: https://www.socialsecurityworks.org/

97% of REPUBLICANS voted for a plan that would STEAL Social Security's 2.9 trillion dollar surplus: Legislation That Would Surreptitiously Steal Social Security’s $2.9 Trillion Surplus Has Been Defeated – But 97% of Republicans Voted For It https://www.socialsecurityworks.org/2018/04/12/politicians-steal-social-security/ via @Social Security Works

[Wounded Bear]

1. They've been saying this since Reagan...

when the truth is, as you pointed out, they are doing their best to kill it. With modest changes to the revenue side, it could be bolstered for the remainder of the 21st Century, but greedy Wall Street types want to get their hands on that money.

Preach on.

[olegramps]

14. And they will keep spreading their lies as long as the "Fair Doctrine" is dead.

[DownriverDem]

31. Reagan & O'Neal fixed SS

They increased the tax so the Baby Boomers would be protected. My husband and I are afraid to retire, but we are thinking of applying for SS sooner rather than later. Very scary.

[Wounded Bear]

32. Yeah, and we Boomers have been paying double what our parents paid...

I took early retirement because I couldn't find any jobs suitable for a 60 YO.

Good luck to you both. I suspect the coming recession will be a doozy.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Thanks so much for posting this. Very very helpful and informative. I've ...

bookmarked and will refer to it often. Again, nice write-up and something I've been wanting to see.

[Zoonart]

3. There is only one chant...

CUT THE CRAP, RAISE THE CAP!

[PatrickforO]

4. Great post.

Thank you.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

5. K&R and thanks.

The public needs to be more enlightened on this issue and reminded on a regular basis.....

[dlk]

6. Republicans Have Been Salivating Over the Social Security Trust Fund for Decades

All that money, surely there must be a way to get their hands on it.

[lostnfound]

12. Local TV bought up by right wing Sinclair. Nt

[Wounded Bear]

21. "ic"...

Democratic party.

If you want to sneak in and subvert the site, perhaps you should avoid such obvious RW idioms.

[Hoyt]

8. Problem is - GOPers aren't going to do anything acceptable to Dems to extend full benefits past 2034

At that point, people are going to be looking at a 23% cut in their SS benefits, and that assumes no economic downturn. If GOPers are still in charge, it will be easy to institute some really unacceptable measures -- increase in retirement age, etc. -- with that cut looming.

It's been a few years, but according to a SS Trustee report -- increasing the cap only corrects about 70% of the problem because an increased cap means increased benefits. So there is still a problem there. I agree it's a simple solution, but I don't believe very many people are going to go for what is in essence a 12+% tax increase, when we have many other things that also need to be addressed such as healthcare, automation's impact on jobs, education, etc. There are of course, other solutions such a cutting the military. But, just saying "it's simple to correct" won't get it done.

My concern -- assuming a roughly 50% split in GOPers and Democrats in Congress and among voters -- is that even Democrats will not compromise to find a solution that corrects the entire problem. Remember the furor and bashing of Obama when the so-called Catfood Commission recommended using a Chained-CPI. First, the C-CPI would have actually led to increase benefits in a few years since that report. Second, and most importantly, the Catfood Commission ALSO recommended INCREASING payments for folks on the lower end of the SS payment scale. Something that is really pressing also, right now.

What will happen, is we'll kick the can down the road, approach 2034, and then have to take drastic action. If the economy ain't looking good or GOPers are still in control or are needed to enact legislation, it will be a chit-show.

This issue should have been addressed when Obama was in office, but even Democrats bashed Obama for looking at what is clearly a big problem.

[lark]

9. They want to steal all the money for the greedy soulless oligarchs.

Medicare, Medicaid, labor laws, environmental laws, any type of birth control as well as public education are all on the chopping block for repugs. This is their wet dream, turn us into russia where it's the serfs and oligarchs model and ll Dems will be killed or jailed if they speak up.

[BSdetect]

10. Remember W Bush wanted to let Wall St manage your Soc Sec money?

Then the housing bubble burst.

We dodged that bullet once already.

Now they see a ripe target, low fruit to pick off and grease their filthy pockets even more.

[lostnfound]

11. A higher minimum wage would also help social security...for every $1 raise, 12 cents goes to SS

I don’t see people making that connection much. Flat wages have been part of the story.

[TexasBushwhacker]

15. Yup, it's all about income inequality

Under the current formula, Social Security stays solvent in perpetuity as long as 90% of wages are subject to SS tax. When we didn't have so much of the wage base going to the uber wealthy, and not subject to SS tax, things were fine and a substantial surplus was building up to handle benefits for the baby boomers. But now that % has dropped and is approaching 80%.

So the solution is to raise wages for folks making less than the cap ($128,700 for 2018) and raise the cap. They could also make capital gains subject to SS tax. I wouldn't want to hit retirees living on their IRAs, but I don't see why we couldn't make investment income of over say $1 Million a year subject to SS tax. They're already getting a break on income tax.

[fleabiscuit]

26. Really good point. nt

[shadowmayor]

13. Unfortunately, it's the whole DC gang

Raise the tax ceiling to $1 million and watch the fund swell with money. Money that could be given right back to the recipients in the form of monthly increases. Nobody talks about how we could increase the size of the monthly checks for retirees, yet it could be done with ease. This would definitely juice the economy, since SS recipients don't park their money in hedge funds or off-shore accounts - they spend it as they get it. About 2/3 of elderly Americans have no real retirement income other than SS. Think about that for a moment.

And it wasn't kept in a locked box like VP Gore repeated over and over. More than $2 Trillion was "borrowed" from SS to pay down the interest on our National Debt from the Reagan era. The situation was so bad that Daddy Bush reneged on his campaign pledge not to raise taxes. During the Clinton presidency, this interest payment was as much as $300 Billion per year. When they say there's a surplus, they count the "borrowed" money as already paid.

And here's the sad part. In order to act in a "bi-partisan" fashion, Presidents Clinton and Obama both put privatization of SS on the table as a negotiating chip. Little is mentioned of this, especially on democratic sites like this one. But it is a sad fact.

The reason why the Republicans hate SS so much is that it works. A government program that works for the people. And your SS taxes and mine help others along the way. Which is probably why so many right wing Christians hate it - it might actually help people who don't look like them, or believe as they do.

Raise the ceiling on SS taxes. Give people fatter checks. How can this not be a winning strategy?

[TexasBushwhacker]

16. I agree about making SS checks bigger

Just like when you raise wages for the lower and middle classes, that money goes straight back into the economy When the economy is healthier for everyone, it's healthier for the wealthy too. Trickle down economics diesn't work, but trickle up does.

[Qutzupalotl]

17. and don't let them sell you on "means testing."

The paltry sum that would purportedly save masks the next step in their plan: the rich suing to opt out of payments, since they could never collect.

[appalachiablue]

24. +1

[aggiesal]

30. Means testing also ...

makes it a welfare check.

If you make too much you shouldn’t get a check
so only the poor get checks.
Bull $hit I’ve paid into SS for 40 years on the
premise that I will get $X when I retire at 62, 65 or 67.

It’s called an entitlement because it is an entitlement.
I’m entitled to that money, when I decide to retire
regardless of how much money I make.

[Tactical Peek]

18. Damn straight.

That should be the A#1 primo wedge issue for all Democratic candidates:

I WILL WORK TO EXPAND AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MY OPPONENT WILL NOT, JUST ASK THEM!


So the hell with them and vote for me.

[smirkymonkey]

19. K&R

Thank you for posting!

[OnDoutside]

20. "Republicans are coming after your Social Security" would make a great ad.

[lordsummerisle]

22. k&r n/t

[MarcA]

23. This is one reason why Democratic Primaries are so important n/t

[appalachiablue]

25. Very important issue, thanks for the post.

[guillaumeb]

27. Recommended.

And this, in my view, is key:

Social Security is extremely affordable with less than one penny of every dollar spent on administrative costs;

If it were privatized, administrative costs would soar as salaries for the upper level administrators would rise to meet the level in other private sector industries.

Plus Wall Street firms would be hired to optimize the investment mix.

[MaryMagdaline]

28. Excellent excellent post

Thank you 🙏

[YOHABLO]

29. MSNBC or CNN should have a town hall on tv to educate the public on the truth about SS