Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Russert Lied on Life Expectency on Social Security 1930's

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:00 PM
Original message
Russert Lied on Life Expectency on Social Security 1930's
Edited on Wed Sep-26-07 11:01 PM by RamboLiberal
Right from Social Security Website it is exposed as a BIG LIE that workers got to 65 and dropped dead in 3 months!

If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.

As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women).

Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security. Indeed, the actuarial estimates used by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) in designing the Social Security program projected that there would be 8.3 million Americans age 65 or older by 1940 (when monthly benefits started). So Social Security was not designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits.

As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.

(Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition.)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

So far I've emailed this to MTP and Media Matters. As I said too bad KO works for the network - would he have the guts to expose Russert obviously playing from the GOP playbook of lies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Please put the period after LIED.

Fat Jaws drives me crazy!
He lies ALL the time and he is a C - student at best.

Where do they find these clowns?

It is an insult to all the brilliant minds in journalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. That's an unfortunate nick name you've given him.
I had to read it twice to make sure you weren't calling him something worse!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Very Interesting Table, Thanks (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. This sounds like a reworking of the legend (?) that Bismark used the same
thinking when he instituted old age pensions in Germany.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. The real stress on Social Security isn't the demand side, it's the supply side.
Those who pay FICA tax on 100% of their payroll wages are in the "bottom 90%" of wage earners, and THOSE are the people who've been slammed by diminished earnings after inflation. In other words, the aggregate payroll base hasn't been increasing its income to keep pace with inflation - i.e. in "constant dollars."



When we consider the ratio of workers to beneficiaries, the massive toll on the number of people working (ten million fewer than 2000 including average growth) taken by the Cheney/Bush adminstration shows its impact.



Remember, the first "baby-boomer" (born in 1946) has not yet reached 66!! Indeed, they haven't reached 62 (early retirement), either.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. And the rich get the tax cuts

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Even worse, it's unearned income that's favored with lower or no taxes. Insane.
Edited on Thu Sep-27-07 09:25 AM by TahitiNut
If I were to make a "quick fix" to Social Security, I'd impose a 2% sales tax on the sale or trade of corporate stocks (equities) and allocate 100% of the proceeds of such a tax to OASDI/HI.

So, the GOP wants to associate corporate stock with Social Security?? They think Social Security would be more 'secure' if based on the stock market? OK. That's how I'd do it. NOT 'investing' in corporate stock. Nope. Collecting a sales tax on the sale or trade of that PROPERTY - a sale of property currently untaxed.

Insofar as how the Trust Fund should be 'invested' (since I don't believe in burying it in mayonaisse jars in the White House back yard), in addition to T-Bills it could hold state and municipal bonds and, if necessary, home mortgage notes/bundles for VA-insured residences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. When will this Bush beat end?

They are happy to keep him in office, no matter how stupid he is because they can keep getting away with this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. What would have happened if Reagan had stolen so much from
social security funds to balance the budget and pay for his programs. After he cut the taxes so much he didn't have any money to pay for running the government. So he stole from social security and it was continued by GHWB and GWB. President Clinton was the only one who didn't use social security funds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 21st 2019, 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC