5 Social Security myths that have to go

[soundforbjt]

It's a much better idea to bet all the SS money on green shovel ready jobs.

It'd be better if the money was not touched by anyone except those eligible to receive it.

 

[Budmantom]

They would get to choose the investments? Don't think so. :\

I thought the left was pro choice?

 

[Budmantom]

It'd be better if the money was not touched by anyone except those eligible to receive it.

Well that is who would be touching it.

 

[lothar]

Why, so Wall Street could lose all the money while lining their pockets at no risk to them?

Do you have an IRA/401k account? Did Wall Street lose all the money in your accounts while lining their pockets at no risk to them?
Do you trust the government not to lose all the money while lining their pockets to their friends at green energy projects like Solyndra, that battery firm in Indiana, military industrial complex, et al, at no risk to them?

 

[lothar]

Yes, it'd be GREAT to be extracting billions and billions from the people to Wall Street, adding multiples of the overhead costs, creating yet more conflicts of interest!

How much conflicts of interest is in IRA and 401k accounts?
I assume you don't contribute to either since you think there might be a conflict of interest?

 

[piasabird]

I read somewhere that only 77% of people on SS are retirement age the rest are disabled or children of deceased, or people who are freeloading on the system or even some charity cases. Some get SS just because they are single parents with children. I dont think single parents deserve special treatment. I didnt force them to be single parents, they made that decision on their own.

Green jobs are crap. It is all just a pile of cow manure. If a product cant make money on its own, then the government shouldnt be bankrolling it. The same goes for energy saving ideas. If buying a new furnace saves you money, you are already paid, so why should the government pay? Keep the government out of our daily lives. The government's job is not to enslave the public!

 

[soundforbjt]

Do you have an IRA/401k account? Did Wall Street lose all the money in your accounts while lining their pockets at no risk to them?

No I do not have an IRA/401K, but have planned and saved for my retirement. I'm semi-retired now. Many people did lose their IRA's, etc. in this last recession.

 

[hans007]

Why, so Wall Street could lose all the money while lining their pockets at no risk to them?

+10000

The only reason they tried to pass that was they needed more fuel to keep the bubble big. Probably an awful idea since people would just gamble it. At least bonds keep their nominal value

 

[QuantumPion]

A better explanation of social security: http://youtu.be/rCdgv7n9xCY

 

[Exterous]

Oooo, another SS thread. I am sure the discussion will be different than last time!

Those people paid in to SS with the promise of getting that money (or at least a portion of it) back. The government's irresponsible use of SS should not screw them of their money, whether they need it or not.

Then where do you suggest getting the money from? I am currently paying into the system with promised benefits past 2034. How do you suggest the government deal with their acknowledged inability to get me that promised money? Currently the system CANNOT pay everyone their promised benefits - your argument is just that the current retirees deserve their promised payments while the younger generation doesn't (or 'we'll fix it later' or 'something magical will happen and all our SS problems will go away')

where in the social security by laws does the word "insurance" exist in regard to non payment if risk or injury is not experienced?? Where is the language that defines social security payments are "premiums"??

Where in SS does it say that the rules and laws around it cannot be changed? Its a promised benefit only so long as the majority of voters think it should be

With the growing angst towards social security (right or wrong) you'd be a fool at this point to plan on it being a major part of your retirement

The best path is to try to fix it now so we have time for a gradual transition to a more workable plan. Otherwise we are going to have a sudden change that will give a lot of people the barbed, unlubricated shaft - probably while they are least able to deal with it

 

[Ausm]

I really wish we could have passed the privatized social security plan under bush.

LMAO....moran!


Here is a dirty little secret the Right does not want exposed....The cap limit for funding SS is approximately 100K, You lift this cap then SS would be solvent FOREVER. That's if you can keep the scumbag Politicians hands out of the cookie jar.

 

[Anarchist420]

I really wish we could have passed the privatized social security plan under bush.

You're quite uninformed. He still wanted it to be funded via taxation and the government got to choose what could be invested in. Privatization of social security would've been phasing out SS taxes and payments (or immediate abolition).

Anyway, Social Security only seemed like it was necessary to some people because of all the taxes Hoover started and because of the fractional reserve banking protection. When FDR started the with holding tax, then that made even more people think it was necessary. It's too bad that asshole Reagan didn't let the social security system die.

 

[Genx87]

LMAO....moran!


Here is a dirty little secret the Right does not want exposed....The cap limit for funding SS is approximately 100K, You lift this cap then SS would be solvent FOREVER. That's if you can keep the scumbag Politicians hands out of the cookie jar.

Are you paying benefits with the lifting of the cap?

 

[dfuze]

That's if you can keep the scumbag Politicians hands out of the cookie jar.

This is the first step I'd like to see done :thumbsup:

 

[Exterous]

Here is a dirty little secret the Right does not want exposed....The cap limit for funding SS is approximately 100K, You lift this cap then SS would be solvent FOREVER. That's if you can keep the scumbag Politicians hands out of the cookie jar.

To be fair - thats not the entire story. The benefits are capped at the same rate. If you remove the cap and increase the benefits proportionally then it removes 93% of the shortfall. Its only if you increase the cap without increasing the benefits that you achive this 'forever' (Which runs counter to a lot of the 'they should get out of it what they pay in' arguments)

I am also highly skeptical of this 'forever' that is mentioned. It is my personal belief that medical advances will put even more pressure on retirement and health care costs than we are currently alloting for. I take issue with making the 'rich' pay even more disproportionate amounts of taxes to subsidize other people's retirements as they would obviously be paying in much more than they could ever hope to get out of SS. As such I am more in favor of changing the age you are elligable for SS (slowly!) but raising the cap (with increased benefits) would be better than doing nothing

 

[KB]

I really wish we could have passed the privatized social security plan under bush.

I didn't like the DUBya much, but his Social Security plan was something I was interested in.
The benefit to his plan was that part of the funds taken for SS would go into my own private account. This was money I could manage myself and which would certainly get a much greater return than the measly return of treasuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...tes#George_W._Bush.27s_privatization_proposal

Yes everyone cries about the money going to wall street, but thats just not the case. With my current 401K, only .10% goes to the mutual fund manager. Wall street doesn't steal the money when stocks go down in value. The market as a whole determines the price of equities based on supply and demand, just like gold or any commodity. Plus as we have seen the value does come back.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Uh, Moynihan saying it earlier has nothing to do with your completely true (but irrelevant to the topic) comments about Gore.

Fixed.

 

[FerrelGeek]

We will never fix SS until we get the US out of its 'entitlement addiction'. Bush's plan had merrit and all it caused was the usual suspects to squeal like pigs about killing old people. The fact that the plan didn't affect the current elderly was irrelevant to the usual suspects.

I didn't like the DUBya much, but his Social Security plan was something I was interested in.
The benefit to his plan was that part of the funds taken for SS would go into my own private account. This was money I could manage myself and which would certainly get a much greater return than the measly return of treasuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...tes#George_W._Bush.27s_privatization_proposal

Yes everyone cries about the money going to wall street, but thats just not the case. With my current 401K, only .10% goes to the mutual fund manager. Wall street doesn't steal the money when stocks go down in value. The market as a whole determines the price of equities based on supply and demand, just like gold or any commodity. Plus as we have seen the value does come back.

 

[Craig234]

We will never fix SS until we get the US out of its 'entitlement addiction'. Bush's plan had merrit and all it caused was the usual suspects to squeal like pigs about killing old people. The fact that the plan didn't affect the current elderly was irrelevant to the usual suspects.

Try getting rid of the 'entitlement addiction' by not skyrocketing the amount of wealth the rich take for themselves.

The 'fact that the plan didn't affect the current recipients' had nothing to do with whether it was a good plan, it was just a wedge attempt to buy off the elderly vote.

To their credit, the elderly did not sell out.

 

[Craig234]

Fixed.

Right, the top national leader who led support for developing the internet, and the world's leader most responsible for publicizing climate change - and oh by the way the leader who started the only network dedicated to progressive programming to help counter the corporate media monopoly - is ignorant, not you. See why I say idiocy?

 

[Ausm]

Are you paying benefits with the lifting of the cap?

LOLwut???

 

[Ausm]

To be fair - thats not the entire story. The benefits are capped at the same rate. If you remove the cap and increase the benefits proportionally then it removes 93% of the shortfall. Its only if you increase the cap without increasing the benefits that you achive this 'forever' (Which runs counter to a lot of the 'they should get out of it what they pay in' arguments)

I am also highly skeptical of this 'forever' that is mentioned. It is my personal belief that medical advances will put even more pressure on retirement and health care costs than we are currently alloting for. I take issue with making the 'rich' pay even more disproportionate amounts of taxes to subsidize other people's retirements as they would obviously be paying in much more than they could ever hope to get out of SS. As such I am more in favor of changing the age you are elligable for SS (slowly!) but raising the cap (with increased benefits) would be better than doing nothing

I see your point but I don't think the piece I was reading considered raising the benefits proportionally.

 

[IGBT]

Oooo, another SS thread. I am sure the discussion will be different than last time!



Then where do you suggest getting the money from? I am currently paying into the system with promised benefits past 2034. How do you suggest the government deal with their acknowledged inability to get me that promised money? Currently the system CANNOT pay everyone their promised benefits - your argument is just that the current retirees deserve their promised payments while the younger generation doesn't (or 'we'll fix it later' or 'something magical will happen and all our SS problems will go away')



Where in SS does it say that the rules and laws around it cannot be changed? Its a promised benefit only so long as the majority of voters think it should be

With the growing angst towards social security (right or wrong) you'd be a fool at this point to plan on it being a major part of your retirement

The best path is to try to fix it now so we have time for a gradual transition to a more workable plan. Otherwise we are going to have a sudden change that will give a lot of people the barbed, unlubricated shaft - probably while they are least able to deal with it

you may be able to change it going forward. But for people 50+ existing rules and bylaws will apply. Make no mistake about it. If workers put into it they expect to use it. It's the admin.'s fault for reckless management of it and allowing withdrawals from people who never payed into it.

 

[Craig234]

How much conflicts of interest is in IRA and 401k accounts?
I assume you don't contribute to either since you think there might be a conflict of interest?

That's a good question.

While I'm ok with these accounts, there are issues. They're not really suitable for replacing Social Security. They are a nice addition for those who get them - lower end workers don't.

They give higher end workers a little taste of the benefits of the benefits of tax deferment - carefully capped - that the rich can exploit far more.

What a coincidence that wealth self-funded political candidated such as Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney support tax changes, in the midst of record low taxes on the rich that have already massively shifted wealth from the people to them, that would further cut the taxes on the rich and give them millions a more, shifting those taxes onto the public.

But on those accounts, yes, they have given Wall Street control over I'd guess trillions of dollars getting fees for that - at the same time that Wall Street has increased its share of the historic norm for industry profits of 10 to 15% of the economy's profits, to as high as 40% - and greatly increased its political power so that they effectively run the government's economic functions, hence the corrupt structure of the TARP money - but more than that, the trillions that didn't get much publicity.

Bottom line is, Social Security has FAR lower overhead costs for its program than Wall Street has for IRAs and 401(k)'s, and privatizing social security would just increase Wall Street profits and the overhead costs of the program more, and increase Wall Street profits massively and their corruption of our government.

It's a little like the cushy role banks obtained for student loans making high profits while the loans were guaranteed by the government so there was no risk.

That's one of Obama's achievments to stop that that should not be controversial.

Edit: to clarify, Romney was self-funded in 2008 but has not funded his own campaign in 2012 - doesn't change the issue much, though.

 

[Ausm]

Oooo, another SS thread. I am sure the discussion will be different than last time!



Then where do you suggest getting the money from? I am currently paying into the system with promised benefits past 2034. How do you suggest the government deal with their acknowledged inability to get me that promised money? Currently the system CANNOT pay everyone their promised benefits - your argument is just that the current retirees deserve their promised payments while the younger generation doesn't (or 'we'll fix it later' or 'something magical will happen and all our SS problems will go away')



Where in SS does it say that the rules and laws around it cannot be changed? Its a promised benefit only so long as the majority of voters think it should be

With the growing angst towards social security (right or wrong) you'd be a fool at this point to plan on it being a major part of your retirement

The best path is to try to fix it now so we have time for a gradual transition to a more workable plan. Otherwise we are going to have a sudden change that will give a lot of people the barbed, unlubricated shaft - probably while they are least able to deal with it

What kills me is my parents LOVE SS and their Medicare but are hardline line Repubs..... I don't waste my time telling them they are voting against their self interests but I can attest that this type of hypocrisy is soon becoming extinct.