How and why the right lies about Social Security - and the media repeat it

[nick1985]

^

good craig ownage

 

[trenchfoot]

In writing for you fools. S&P wanted $4 trillion in cuts. We gave them half that and we had to fight tooth and nail to get to that point.

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245315237257

I don't see anywhere in your quote about $4 trillion in cuts. What I see there is "medium term fiscal consolidation", which could also include increased tax revenues along with cuts and other instruments to reduce the deficit.

 

[Jhhnn]

And for the record, a very large chunk of that "horded cash" has/is being used to fuel our governments deficit spending. Notice the price of treasuries lately?

Which begs the question of why the govt should borrow so much when they have the power to take a much larger part of it as taxes. Rather painlessly for those at the top, too, considering that the 1% share of national income has more than doubled while their effective tax rate has fallen by a third over the last 30 years.

I mean, we started out down this cut taxes, borrow & spend road in pursuit of growth & trickledown economic goodness, which you just admitted isn't what's happening in today's economy. No growth, no trickledown. Holding top tier Job Creator! taxes low is apparently a counter productive exercise in futility.

 

[ElFenix]

No, it's not.

First, it's not going to happen.

Second, the scare mongers use phrases like 'you won't see a penny from it'.

Third, Social Security doesn't have any fixed amount it's 'guaranteed' to pay, in a 'just claim'.

People equate 'bankrupt' with 'you won't see any money from it'. Even 80% is far from that.

the definition of bankrupt is unable to pay bills as they come in. if you're only paying 80% of the bills, that's bankrupt. it's one thing to say 'it won't happen,' or 'they'll figure something out like means testing or increase the retirement age,' it's another thing thing to have the definition posted for you and then claim otherwise.

 

[blackangst1]

So, uhh, what was your point, if you actually had one other than blame shifting, anyway?

Who is shifting blame here? Me, who truthfully says its BOTH parties that fucked up and bickered, or you, who soley blame the GOP?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Craig, social security is a ponzi scheme. There's no way around that. It's the absolute definition of the term. Saying that "it's not going bankrupt" because it can pay out smaller amounts isn't a valid argument. You might as well tell the bank "I'm still able to pay my loan; I'm just going to pay less of it." People are going to pay more into Social Security than they get back - that's not a satisfactory system. The whole thing should be scrapped, and people should do their own investments.

 

[HomerJS]

If he was continuing Bush's policies the debt would be at least a trillion less than it actually is...

If he continued Bush's policies we would have lost 800,000x30 a whopping 24 million more jobs!! Think we would have been in better shape??

I think I'll take the current debt over those job losses.

BTW - I calculated what would have been your cherished Bush policy unemployment rate...24.8%. That would be an official depression part duex

 

[ProfJohn]

If he continued Bush's policies we would have lost 800,000x30 a whopping 24 million more jobs!! Think we would have been in better shape??

I think I'll take the current debt over those job losses.

BTW - I calculated what would have been your cherished Bush policy unemployment rate...24.8%. That would be an official depression part duex

Calculated??

You mean you made up numbers?

 

[Jhhnn]

Who is shifting blame here? Me, who truthfully says its BOTH parties that fucked up and bickered, or you, who soley blame the GOP?

You merely offer the usual false equivalency of the Right.

Repubs are the ones who took the debt ceiling hostage, nearly forced default, held out until the last moment to force concessions while refusing to accomplish what they knew full well what the ratings agencies wanted. Actually working with Dems to solve problems would spoil their electoral strategy of demonizing the opposition.

All repubs want is to Beat Obama! and they'll impose any price necessary on the nation in pursuit of that goal. They'd rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, and they're entirely willing to create hell so they can rule over it some day.

 

[HomerJS]

Calculated??

You mean you made up numbers?

Ok follow the bouncing ball...

Current unemployment rate 9.1%
Current number of unemployed people 13.9 million (according to govt stats)
800,000 jobs/month being lost when Obama took over.
He has completed almost 30 months 800,000x30 = 24 million
Add 24m to 13.9m for a new unemployed total of 37.9 million

If you cross multiply 9.1/100 vs 13.9/x you get total labor force 152.7m

Now cross multiply x/100 vs 37.9/152.7 you get 24.8%

Any questions???

 

[ProfJohn]

So without Obama the jobs just would have kept disappearing forever?

You're clueless dude...

 

[HomerJS]

So without Obama the jobs just would have kept disappearing forever?

You're clueless dude...

So with Obama the debt would go up forever? I believe some of your earlier posts try to make this argument. Pretty weak.

Eventually Bush would have been forced to enact some kind of stimulus to staunch the bleeding of jobs.

What is means it's probably a better choice of higher debt vs depression level unemployment

 

[her209]

Craig, social security is a ponzi scheme. There's no way around that. It's the absolute definition of the term.

A ponzi scheme claims to have higher than normal rate of returns compared to other investments. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this is the case with Social Security.

Saying that "it's not going bankrupt" because it can pay out smaller amounts isn't a valid argument. You might as well tell the bank " I'm still able to pay my loan; I'm just going to pay less of it." People are going to pay more into Social Security than they get back - that's not a satisfactory system.

If people are living longer, then their benefits should come down a little because its being spread over a longer period. Either that or raise the retirement age of when people can start drawing from Social Security.

The whole thing should be scrapped, and people should do their own investments.

And when their investments go sour, they'll come begging the government for assistance.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, social security is a ponzi scheme. There's no way around that. It's the absolute definition of the term.

You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is.

A Ponzi scheme is a claim of having a system for making a high rate of return on an investment, where the story is a lie, and entices investment by paying peope some returns that are falsely said to be proof of the return on the investment, but are actually just other investors' money that's supposed to be invested but isn't.

It collapses under the lie eventually, because it can't pay enough to cover the pretend 'investment' proceeds to all the investors, since there is no investment.

Social Security doesn't have any false 'great investment' scheme as its basis. It's simply a collectio of a payroll tax and a payout of benefits to people who qualify. The math is clear, transparent, sustainable, unlike a Ponzi scheme. Republicans said when Social Security started it would collapse right away; it hasn't.

Saying that "it's not going bankrupt" because it can pay out smaller amounts isn't a valid argument. You might as well tell the bank "I'm still able to pay my loan; I'm just going to pay less of it."

I already address the rest of these issues, and you are rasing them again ignoring my post.

It's valid for the reasons I listed - here, I'll cut and paste:


"First, it's not going to happen.

Second, the scare mongers use phrases like 'you won't see a penny from it'.

Third, Social Security doesn't have any fixed amount it's 'guaranteed' to pay, in a 'just claim'.

People equate 'bankrupt' with 'you won't see any money from it'. Even 80% is far from that."

People are going to pay more into Social Security than they get back - that's not a satisfactory system. The whole thing should be scrapped, and people should do their own investments.

I don't recall the 'how much they pay and get back' info, but it's better than the alternatives.

I already explained why privatization is worse.

Another poster nicely explained why your solution is worse.

But our country had your system until Social Security was created. And it had a horrible situation for elders. They were in miserable poverty, with a 90% poverty rate.

There's this little detail of your suggestion, or whether it actually works. It doesn't. Social Security does. It reversed the elder poverty rate to 10% in poverty.

It's easy to let ideology say 'there's this great simple solution', not understanding history or issues with the solution.

This is one of those cases for H. L. Mencken's quote:

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."

Social Security is the most popular and successful US government program ever. It has done great at addressing elder poverty.

You unwittingly want to destroy it and return to, for one possibility, the days of massive elder poverty, as your empty plan for 'do your own' failed miserably before, following the suggestion of the propaganda for the wealthy whose interest is not the same as the public's or yours, as I said in the OP.

This thread is about the video showing a taste of how the propaganda is funded and done.

Did you watch the video, and do you have comments on the topic, not Social Security?

 

[Darwin333]

Which begs the question of why the govt should borrow so much when they have the power to take a much larger part of it as taxes. Rather painlessly for those at the top, too, considering that the 1% share of national income has more than doubled while their effective tax rate has fallen by a third over the last 30 years.

I mean, we started out down this cut taxes, borrow & spend road in pursuit of growth & trickledown economic goodness, which you just admitted isn't what's happening in today's economy. No growth, no trickledown. Holding top tier Job Creator! taxes low is apparently a counter productive exercise in futility.

You seem to imply that I am for the other side and their ideas when in fact I think both sides are completely full of shit.

Low taxes could possibly be good if matched with equally low spending, which they are not. So yes, taxes must go up. Unfortunately the rich can not close the gap alone but its damn sure easier to start with them. After all of the tax increases we can bear, we still must substantially cut spending.

I have zero faith that either side is willing to do anything meaningful to fix the problem though, so round and round we go.

 

[Jhhnn]

You seem to imply that I am for the other side and their ideas when in fact I think both sides are completely full of shit.

Low taxes could possibly be good if matched with equally low spending, which they are not. So yes, taxes must go up. Unfortunately the rich can not close the gap alone but its damn sure easier to start with them. After all of the tax increases we can bear, we still must substantially cut spending.

I have zero faith that either side is willing to do anything meaningful to fix the problem though, so round and round we go.

I think you're buying into the "low taxes & smaller govt" meme of the right wing. The "low taxes" part is how we got where we are today, deeply in debt with ever increasing income equality. It began in the Reagan era when the nation was sold the whole trickledown supply side economic theory. The Job Creator meme of today is the same whore in a different dress.

A big part of the problem wrt SS solvency is the shift of income sourcing, (from earned income to investment income) and a radical shift to the top, where more income escapes SS taxation due to the cutoff. In 1980, roughly 32% of income went to the top 10%. Today, it's ~46%. That represents an enormous shifting of income outside the realm of SS taxation, given that investment income never was part of SS, and that earned income above the 90th percentile mark is exempt.

Republicans were entirely pleased with the federal revenue SS generated, if not with the program itself, until the bookkeeping started to shift from being a cash cow to being a drain. So they're starting to squirm, knowing that SS revenues will necessarily need to be supplemented from the general fund, which has been obvious ever since contributions were increased in 1983. Too bad they borrowed us into a corner, because we'll need to raise taxes to cover it.

 

[JockoJohnson]

If people are living longer, then their benefits should come down a little because its being spread over a longer period. Either that or raise the retirement age of when people can start drawing from Social Security.


And when their investments go sour, they'll come begging the government for assistance.

I like these ideas very much. But try getting them passed with all of the old farts that won't allow anything to be changed. And I agree, we need to keep SS--not get rid of it.

 

[blackangst1]

I think you're buying into the "low taxes & smaller govt" meme of the right wing. ---snipped---

And you've obviously bought the left's "tax the rich to get back what they stole from the middle class" meme.

loliberals

 

[piasabird]

If you raise the retirement age more people will be on SS disability. Just because some people are lucky and will live longer, that does not hold true for everyone. At present only 65% of the people who receive SS are actually at SS full retirement age.

In reality, Medicair is much more of a problem than Social Security.

 

[Jhhnn]

And you've obviously bought the left's "tax the rich to get back what they stole from the middle class" meme.

loliberals

The numbers support what I've said, and I've put them forth many times.

And you? Well, uhh, err... you function on gut reactions & faith, like our former president...

How *did* we get into this mess, anyway, if not that way?

 

[nonlnear]

So if you get killed what happens to your kids?

I have insurance. It's quite affordable. If you want a government program to offer life insurance to uninsurable risks, that's reasonable. That is what you are advocating, right?

 

[Craig234]

Medicair is much more of a problem than Social Security.

I agree.

But change 'Medicare' to 'Healthcare'.

And Medicare for all is the SOLUTION to Healthcare.

We need to save the many billions wasted. We can't afford to keep enriching insurers.

 

[Darwin333]

I think you're buying into the "low taxes & smaller govt" meme of the right wing. The "low taxes" part is how we got where we are today, deeply in debt with ever increasing income equality. It began in the Reagan era when the nation was sold the whole trickledown supply side economic theory. The Job Creator meme of today is the same whore in a different dress.

I don't buy into a damned thing these days that politicians sell unless they can back it up with math that I can verify myself. I even give them huge margins of error but what I have found is that none, and I mean absolutely none, of them expect us idiots to actually do the math. That is how they get away with the bullshit claims they do (this bill is going to cut over a TRILLION dollars in the next ten years..... all of it in the 10th year though).

I have consistently agreed that taxes must (not should) go up. They should most definitely go up on the rich sooner and heavier but the basic math says that it won't cut it alone. We also need very significant spending cuts AND tax increases on the rest of us (myself included). My point, that you tried to turn around into me "buying into" something" was that we must pay for the government that we want. Maybe, just maybe, when we ALL have to pay for the entirety of the Federal budget every year will the exponential growth of our debt stop. Until then you are fighting the law of exponents and I got money on the law of exponents.

A big part of the problem wrt SS solvency is the shift of income sourcing, (from earned income to investment income) and a radical shift to the top, where more income escapes SS taxation due to the cutoff. In 1980, roughly 32% of income went to the top 10%. Today, it's ~46%. That represents an enormous shifting of income outside the realm of SS taxation, given that investment income never was part of SS, and that earned income above the 90th percentile mark is exempt.

Fair enough. Again though, the entire intent of the plan was to pay out in accordance to what one has paid in. This is still true to this day. Are you suggesting that change and some sort of means testing be implemented or are you suggesting those who will be paying more receive more?

Republicans were entirely pleased with the federal revenue SS generated, if not with the program itself, until the bookkeeping started to shift from being a cash cow to being a drain. So they're starting to squirm, knowing that SS revenues will necessarily need to be supplemented from the general fund, which has been obvious ever since contributions were increased in 1983. Too bad they borrowed us into a corner, because we'll need to raise taxes to cover it.

Of course the Republicans were pleased to spend the surplus but I got news for ya. The program was started for the sole purpose of generating revenue. It has been wildly successful up until this very point in time. Don't get me wrong, I think something like this program is necessary in our society but I am not going to lay the entire blame of its failings on one of the two fucked up clubs we have. I dislike them as much as I dislike your club but I, unlike both of the asshole clubs, prefer facts over bullshit. If I am factually wrong I truly appreciate being corrected, just leave the partisan bullshit out of it because I truly couldn't give less of a fuck about your party or theirs. Neither of them act in the best interests of this country.

 

[Darwin333]

I agree.

But change 'Medicare' to 'Healthcare'.

And Medicare for all is the SOLUTION to Healthcare.

We need to save the many billions wasted. We can't afford to keep enriching insurers.

From my last post that you didn't reply to:

Again I ask, why can't we provide Medicare for all with what we currently spend on Medicare? Correct me if I am wrong but using the per capita spending of other 1st world countries with similar UHC shouldn't just what we currently spend cover us all? If so I am all for it.

Added to this post:

If we can not do the above then how much more will "Medicare for all" cost us? I don't care who the money comes from just an actual dollar figure on how much Medicare for all will cost at the end of the day.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here in nice visual form.

We are 20 years away from a total meltdown.
If we don't do some major reforms then SS, Medicare etc will destroy the country. We can't waste 20% of our economy on social spending that provides no long term economic benefit.