Poll: Social Security is in deep trouble

[thoughtanarchist]

Poll: Social Security is in deep trouble

Washington, DC, Dec. 22 (UPI) -- A large majority of U.S. residents think Social Security is anything but secure, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.


http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041222-090343-5990r.htm

[shoelace414]

1. Social security will..

..Be bankrupt in 2048 (when I'm 78) so we have to bankrupt it today!

[dpibel]

48. Please don't spread the virus

I don't intend this as a nitpick; I think on this issue especially, it's important not to repeat any of the propaganda buzz.

SS will not be bankrupt in 2048. Even with no change, it will be able to pay 75-80% of anticipated benefits. Fixing it is a small tweak, not a big explosion.

"Bankrupt" is an important part of the disinformation campaign.

[MaineDem]

2. Consider the source... (nt)

[mcscajun]

3. The BushCo propaganda is working all too well.

The same bozos who bought the Iraq-9/11 conflation are buying this one @ wholesale prices.

If you tell them lies often enough and loud enough...they will believe.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

32. "Social Security is in deep trouble & Kerry can't protect you from TERRA"

So sayeth the Boy King.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. A large majority of US residents.....

Have been seriously mis-educated. x(

[truthisfreedom]

5. just what bushco wants us to think we think.

nice xmas present, bush.

[shanti]

and he's been planning this

since back in the 80's. read kitty kelley's book - it's in there.

[tinymontgomery]

6. Again people show their ignorance

it's in danger alright, from * and his cronies.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

7. And that Saddam was involved with 9/11

and that libruls hate Christmas...

and that asswipe* is a strong leader...

and that Saddam's WMD's are in Syria...

and that the tax cuts WERE NOT for the wealthy...

and that somewhere down the line, of course, deficits DO matter, but not until the man behind the curtain tells us they do...then we will blame Clinton and the gay-loving demo-nuts for it anyways...

Here we F**king go again...

[gpandas]

8. a large number of americans think...

saddam and bin lauden were allies. a large number of americans believe america has god on it's side. a large number of americans are silly geese.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

10. gpandas, you are a kind person

I would have said stupid assholes...

[mtnester]

9. The Bushinistas sure have brainwashing

down to a science....I heard discussion this morning on Morning Sedition relating to this very thing by a very interesting professor...talking about how the right wing frames (spins)something over and over, with a story attached, burns it in your day to day thinking....it becomes INGRAINED

[Ganja Ninja]

11. Reality and perception are two different things.

The people in this country are rubes. They're suckers, pigeons waiting to be plucked.
I guess in the new economy a viable career choice is conman.

[thoughtanarchist]

12. the media blitz begins early...

that story broke just yesterday and here we go today...

[txaslftist]

13. this is not new info.

We've all seen the writing on the wall for years. Anyone born after about 1963 knows full well social security isn't part of anyone's sensible retirement planning.

[hatrack]

14. Your yellow dog logo isn't fooling anyone nt

.

[txaslftist]

17. missed my point...

point is that the repugs have been raiding ss for years, under Bush I, Ray-gun and Bush II. Ray-gun spent money like a teenage girl with a new credit card, Bush II spends like that same teenager on crack. Where's my social security going to come from? The printing office? Or will the eligibility age be 95 when its my turn to draw ss?

Buy mutual funds, preferably with a strong European stock component. This ship is sinking.

[sportndandy]

15. Social Security DOES Work

Adminstrative costs are approximately 1% of the budget. Is there any other government program that is so efficient? I wouldn't want to depend on SS for my retirement, but many people have no choice. Can it be improved? Of course! Merely switch the tax burden from people earning under $75, 000 to those earning over $75 K. Problem solved.

[toopers]

23. I don't think I would just look at admin costs.

Everyone knows tht the ROI for SS sucks. If it is not going to admin costs, where is it going? I just want what our elected officials in Congress get.

[kostya]

31. You're perpetuating the same myth the Repugs are pushing.

SS is not an investment program, it's a social safety net. The rules you'd apply to a mutual fund don't apply. If you measure it that way (which is erroneous as the ROI will vary for individuals based on contributions and outflow) it is at least a positive ROI backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. For better or worse, the guarantee doesn't get any better than that.

As for solving the SS problem, well, it doesn't exist. For the past 30 years they have been telling us it is going to go belly-up in 30 years. Get the picture? It is NOT going broke, it will merely start running a deficit later, but it's not going to break the bank and will go to surplus later. This SS scare is just a buncha crap from those who want to shirk any responsibility to the system, i.e. not pay their fair share. - K

[Been Fishing]

44. It's a real philosophical difference...

The repugs truly believe that individuals should plan for their own retirement. If you don't, you're lazy, looking for a hand-out, or are a commie (just go ask them).

They don't recognize hard-times, misfortunes, or poverty. Not everyone has a company pension, 401K, and several IRAs waiting for them in the future.

[stray cat]

16. Social security will be a problem but I disagree with Bush Co soln.

Why do we think the budget deficit is a problem or that Bush's massive tax cuts are a problem? Because we know the there is not bottomless good will to keep lending America money. Social security and medicare have the potential to cause serious problems in the future because they depend on a pyramid structure with more wage earners at the bottom. The pyramid will turn upside down as the baby boomers retire. I disagree with Bush's solns and distrust him. However, I sure have never planned on SS being there for my retirement. Have you?

[dpibel]

49. Not so

Originally, when the worker:retiree ratio was high, the program simply paid out this year's taxes to this year's retirees.

Since the baby boom was a neither subtle nor overlooked phenomenon, the changed ratio of workers to retirees was pretty easy to anticipate, and it was anticipated. That's why there was a commission to fix it--I don't recall is Greenspan chaired it, or was just a major participant. The fix was this: The FICA withholding was increased, so the program began bringing in more than it was paying out. That's where the trust fund comes from. Thus, since, IIRC, 1983, workers have been paying for present retirees plus paying into the trust fund for their own retirement.

All this hoohah about worthless IOUs is just that. The bonds in the SS trust fund are not the same as negotiable US Treasuries. OTOH, they're backed by the same full faith and credit. If the US defaults on bonds owed to its own retirees, how's it expect to ever sell another one to China?

As Krugman points out, the only thing required to fix SS into the indefinite future is revoking one-quarter of the tax gift given to those making over $500,000 a year. Not rocket science. Not going to bring the (already screechingly halting economy) to a screeching halt.

[Igel]

50. The problem isn't that they'll default.

But that means general revenues have to replace the bonds. This is at the same time that medicaid/-care costs will be increasing for the wave of 65+ people.

Krugman's being a bit disingenuous: the tax increase he wants assumes that redeeming trust-fund bonds will be painless. I don't think it will be (but also haven't even tried to crunch the numbers--a lot of it depends on what you base your projections on).

[arikara]

18. Your social security is just fine

but the chimpanzee/media propaganda is working overtime to make the American people believe otherwise.

Check this interview with Paul Krugman:

<snip>
The important thing to say here is that Social Security is way down on the list of problems we have got. If you were going to take a look at just the budget, we have a huge, immediate problem on the deficit about which Bush intends to do nothing, really. We have a very serious problem on Medicare and Medicaid, which is a big issue. Social Security is the bright spot. It has maybe some mild financial problems, several decades out, and here we are -- he wants a crisis there, partly to distract from the very real crises in other places, and there you go.

<snip>

Social Security is a program which has been traditionally run. It looks like a retirement fund, and it is not exactly. What it really is is a government program with a dedicated tax. We take the payroll tax and it's used to pay benefits to retirees. And 20-plus years ago, the commission led by Alan Greenspan said, you know, we are going to have this problem as the baby boomers reach retirement age. We will have a higher ratio of retirees to workers, and we better get ready for it. Social Security, the payroll tax was increased. There were some other things, a small rise in the retirement age set in motion. So that Social Security would run a surplus, which would be used to accumulate a trust fund, and this would tithe us over, some ways into the aging of the population. And that on its own accounting is working just fine. I mean, one of the things that we need to know is that the estimates of the day at which the trust fund runs out, just keep on receding further into the future, because the program is doing so well at running surpluses. So, ten years ago, people said it was going to run out in 2029. Now the official estimate is 2042. Realistically, it's probably going to go well into the second half of the century. Now how does this become a crisis? Well it becomes a crisis by changing the rules. By saying, oh, well, actually, that surplus that we're running because of the tax increase that was designed to prolong the life of Social Security, that's not real. Because it's invested in government bonds which are a perfectly good asset, for anybody else, but not for the Social Security administration. And so, there was a real crisis that people saw in the 1980's. They dealt with it. The solution worked very well, but because this administration, because the Republican party doesn't want Social Security to remain, because they have always wanted to get rid of it since Franklin Roosevelt, they have decided to redefine the rules so as to call it a crisis when realistically, we have a huge budget problem, but that has nothing to do with Social Security.

<snip>

the rest here:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/21/1535228

[Massachusetts]

43. Yes

Krugman, Krugman, Krugman.

To bad the MORONS who need SS the most and are willing to be lock and step with the chimp think that Krugman is a New York bagel.

[Historic NY]

19. I find it amusing because its the government that is running it into....

ground. Remember Reagan he tapped the SS surplus and made it part of the budget. Hey its a wonderful source to tap for Reaganomics. Give the politicians a source of revenue that is just sitting around and well eventually they will steal from it. Social Security regularly takes in more money in a year than it needs to funds itself. Again we have another source of temptation, lets use that money for say helping offset the Defense budget. For many years our government has been borrowing against "OUR MONEY", yup our money and leaving us a receipt or and IOU that they never intended to repay.

Its time to fix Social Security I agree and the best fix is to prevent our greedy politicians access to it. They want to privatize it okay, lets just take every bit of the money and let a private shareholder company manage it. Remove the ability of government to tap the money and one will see the whole problem disappear. We must make them accountable to repaying every thin dime that was taken and not replaced.

[killbotfactory]

20. Because Bush is planning on fucking with it

And politicians won't stop borrowing from it

[KansDem]

29. Bush will "fix" Social Security like he "fixed" Iraq...

That should be all Americans need to know...

[Voltaire99]

21. You can convince US majorities of anything. Anything.

It helps to have at your disposal the greatest propaganda tool ever invented: the American corporate media.

[Walt Starr]

22. Moonie Times

illegitimate source.

[Historic NY]

26. may be but they just bought Slate magazine from MS......n/t

[Walt Starr]

27. So now there's a Moonie Mag

:shrug:

Moon is a freak anbd any media oputlet associated with the freak is equally freaky.

[DieboldMustDie]

34. Slate is being bought by the Washington Post, not the Moonie Times.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1000642569

[Historic NY]

40. Oops got them mixed up..........n/t

[LiberalFighter]

24. Of course it is in trouble... look at who is trying to "save it"

[Banazir]

25. It's in trouble now that Bush has his hands on it n/t

[Sandpiper]

28. Joseph Goebbels would be so proud

At Bushco's absolute mastery of the Big Lie strategy.

[denverbill]

30. They are right. It's in DEEP trouble. Bush is trying to kill it. n/t

[chomskysright]

46. 10 talking pts: here the rebuttal: use these

I've compiled these points from information I have been collecting.

I'm sending these around to newspapers. We can anticipate and innoculate against this Bush deployment.

[email protected]



TEN REASONS WHY PRESIDENT BUSH'S PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA

1. WHO WANTS THE CHANGE? Wall Street wants privatization in order reap a windfall profit. Everyone else should be very suspicious. If the stock market goes down, your benefits go down.

2. WHY DOES WALL STREET WANT THE CHANGE? In the background, beyond private accounts, are various proposals to cut guaranteed Social Security
benefits in the future.

3. BUT WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER DEPRESSION AS IN 1929: wrong: In 1973-74, the stock
market lost 48 percent of its value. The stock market is a very dangerous place to put money

4. WHO DOES NOT WANT THE CHANGE? AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, is coming out
strongly against President Bush's plan to allow private individual accounts
within Social Security.

5. HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? transitioning to private accounts could cost $2 trillion.

6. WHERE WOULD THAT MONEY COME FROM? our taxes will have to be increased to make Bush's proposed plan work.

7. HOW EFFICIENT IS THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM NOW? More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead.

8. OTHER COUNTIES MUST HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MAYBE THOSE ARE BETTER? wrong: Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. A privatized system will take money from your Social Security check.

9. SHOULD YOU BE WORRIED THAT YOU WILL NOT HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY? Nothing is going to change, in terms of benefits, for people near your retirement age.

10. WHO TAXED SOCIAL SECURITY TO BEGIN WITH? Ronald Reagan, a Republican, began the taxation on Social Security in 1983.

There is no Social Security crisis, just as there were no weapons of mass destruction. Social Security has provided a lifeline to millions of Americans with
millions of checks, and in more than 60 years has never missed a payment—and this track record can continue. Social Security is basically a sound system
that can meet 100 percent of its obligations for the next 39 years, and with responsible changes it can continue to do so indefinitely

[Triana]

33. bullshit

It WILL BE once bu$hit is done with it though.

[bunkerbuster1]

35. self delete

[DieboldMustDie]

36. The text of your message cites the Washing Post...

but the link is to the Moonie Times. :shrug:

[Chef]

37. Don't by *'s BS

"The ROI sucks" First, it's not an investment. It is a pay-as-you-go retirement plan. Current contributors pay for current retirees, the disabled, and widows and dependents. The average recipient has gotten an amount equal to all his contributions within 3 and 1/2 years of retirement. Because of its accelerated progressivity, low wage earners (those less likely to voluntarily save for retirement) actually receive a high "ROI". Second, the pyramid problem is phony. Yes, there are fewer earners per retiree now and in the future, but this is a very simplistic and false way of saying that there is a problem. However, because of their productivity, the payers still "over-contribute" to the payout causing a surplus. The surplus is borrowed to run the rest of the government since we don't dare pay for it out of reduced taxation which hides the true cost of government. One day, the notes will have to be paid back. What * is doing is refinancing that debt by adding more debt. If you simply raise the limit on earnings subject to the tax, any long term problem goes away. SS shouldn't be the only retirement plan one has. Still, for one third of all retirees, that all they have. If what looks like is proposed goes through, a trillion $ has to be borrowed to make up for the $ that is skimmed off to pay current and future retirees. Do you think people will voluntarily save in a prudent way to provide for retirement?

[Kimber Scott]

38. We either fight this shit now, or kiss Social Security goodbye.

The propaganda machine is gaining speed.

[thecrow]

39. Does this mean that * 's media blitz has begun?

"It's in trouble because I say so".... is that it, Mr. pResident?

:cough: bullshit :cough:

[Amigust]

41. SS Is in Trouble ONLY Because Bush Is Gunning for It

As for the poll, the public believes it only because the media repeat ad nauseum Bush's lies that SS is in trouble, just like they believed the media hype about Iraq leading up to the war.

As for 2048, the date has actually been pushed further and further into out into the future with the passage of time because it has been successfully taking care of itself. It is not in trouble for any other reason than being in Bush's gunsight.

[stevebreeze]

42. SS is in trouble? we should all be in such dire financial straights.

According to Bush trouble "looms" in 2018. At that time SS will have $3.8 TRILLION in assets. It will have enough income to cover all expenses. The only change will be some of the income spent will be in interest payment on the T-bills. This is also assuming we have a relatively weak economy from now until then...Of course if the GOP stay in power that is one thing we can count on.

[chomskysright]

45. WRONG : its in no trouble: 10 talking pts

I've compiled these points from information I have been collecting.

I'm sending these around to newspapers. We can anticipate and innoculate against this Bush deployment.

[email protected]



TEN REASONS WHY PRESIDENT BUSH'S PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA

1. WHO WANTS THE CHANGE? Wall Street wants privatization in order reap a windfall profit. Everyone else should be very suspicious. If the stock market goes down, your benefits go down.

2. WHY DOES WALL STREET WANT THE CHANGE? In the background, beyond private accounts, are various proposals to cut guaranteed Social Security
benefits in the future.

3. BUT WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER DEPRESSION AS IN 1929: wrong: In 1973-74, the stock
market lost 48 percent of its value. The stock market is a very dangerous place to put money

4. WHO DOES NOT WANT THE CHANGE? AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, is coming out
strongly against President Bush's plan to allow private individual accounts
within Social Security.

5. HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? transitioning to private accounts could cost $2 trillion.

6. WHERE WOULD THAT MONEY COME FROM? our taxes will have to be increased to make Bush's proposed plan work.

7. HOW EFFICIENT IS THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM NOW? More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead.

8. OTHER COUNTIES MUST HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MAYBE THOSE ARE BETTER? wrong: Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. A privatized system will take money from your Social Security check.

9. SHOULD YOU BE WORRIED THAT YOU WILL NOT HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY? Nothing is going to change, in terms of benefits, for people near your retirement age.

10. WHO TAXED SOCIAL SECURITY TO BEGIN WITH? Ronald Reagan, a Republican, began the taxation on Social Security in 1983.

There is no Social Security crisis, just as there were no weapons of mass destruction. Social Security has provided a lifeline to millions of Americans with
millions of checks, and in more than 60 years has never missed a payment—and this track record can continue. Social Security is basically a sound system
that can meet 100 percent of its obligations for the next 39 years, and with responsible changes it can continue to do so indefinitely

[leQ]

47. josh marshall has been hitting on this topic a lot lately

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com