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

[Craig234]

I have often posted here about how various right-wing funding - tycoons, corporations - have funded a massive propaganda infrastructure, referred to as the 'right-wing noise machine', which takes policies that benefit the payers (usually if not always at the expense of the public; the ones that are beneficial for them and the public, like, say, winning World War II or vaccinating children, don't need much lobbying) and pays their 'think tanks' - propaganda machines - to come up with 'sales pitches', which are then fed into the media side - dedicated right-wing outlets, like the Wall Street editorial page and Fox News, publish the spin, and give it enough attention it starts to be reported by 'Mainstream media'.

They keep a stable of at least hundreds of 'talking heads' on standby for fast availability to television shows, to write columns for papers, that's very attractive to these media outlets to quickly and easily have these 'resources' available to fill their shows, and this gives them an advantage in airtime.

They know 'the big lie' technique among others, and with years of pitching, their story gains support among the public.

Anyway, while I've talked about it, below is a short video clip about 3 minutes long that shows this in action for just a tiny taste of how it works, on Social Security.

The agenda for this is at least threefold:

- Simple politics: the Democrats created it and get credit, so destroy it to reduce their support. This is the 'Democrats invent free energy, so destroy the info' school of politics.

- Reducing the wealth of the public makes the wealth of the rich more valuable. This is basic 'concentration of wealth' agenda. Money not spent on them, can go to the rich.

- Privatization would create many, many billions of dollars of profit in fees for administering Social Security, while putting the retirement funds of Americans worth trillions into the hands of Wall Street to invest and leverage - fueling the bubble of the day, more than they already can with their massive resources, including the other retirement money, 401(k) and pensions. Wall Street is willing to spend to lobby for that.

The video has Bernie Sanders commenting, listing three myths the right-wing spreads:

1. Social Security needs to raise the age of retirement

Actually, this is the most sympathetic of the three - because things have changed drastically since Social Security was created. It did have the age raised before.

But counterpoints are that there are better ways to improve the finances of Social Security, if needed (see point #2), and that this takes jobs from other Americans.

(Which increases the labor pool, which reduces the cost of labor, helping the wealthy).

2. Social Security is going bankrupt

No, it's not. First, if nothing changes, it's ok to pay full benefits for decades to come; when the 'bubble' hits, it will, if nothing changes, reduce benefits to a number I don't recall exactly, but for the sake of discussion, around 80% of what they would be. That's the 'bankruptcy'. But just small changes to the system will prevent even that, when it's an issue - things like adding some means testing or increasing or removing the cap (removing the cap alone would pay for 100% benefits without any other changes).

This myth is what's called in marketing, FUD - "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt", to create pressure among voters to "DO SOMETHING!", it's like the 'supplies are limited' type thing.

3. Social Security should be privatized

This one is a bit more complicated - it includes 'stocks pay more, so why not get the benefit, after all these are long term investments'.

It gets into a lot of issues why this causes problems, but suffice it to say the effects include Wall Street getting its hands on all that money, for use and fees.

In short, no it shouldn't, and if it were, it should be by people who do not serve Wall Street, Elizabeth Warren qualifies, Barack Obama does not. And that's not going to happen.

It's basically guaranteed that any privatization would be structured by Wall Street for their benefit.

I think the video is very good for showing a little of the situation.

If you respond to the thread, please say if you watched it, I'm leaning toward only reading replies that begin by saying they did.

It's the topic, not parroted posts rehashing 'opinions on Social Security' and such - opinions which are ok to argue with the points above and in the video, after watching it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFymBUsoNWY&feature=youtu.be

Edit: topic from "Video: learn more about the 'right-wing noise machine' on Social Security"

 

[FuzzyBee]

Oooh! Did he do a video about Madoff's Ponzi scheme, too? Maybe there's a series!

BTW, I don't care if you don't read or respond to my post.

 

[Zebo]

SS has been in red last two years. 40 and 60 billion respectively. In other words that came out of general budget since there is no "trust fund", that was spent to give tax breaks to wealthy and kept everyone happy so I'm not really sure that it's not "bankrupt" but it certainly is "short". It would be in black easy though with tweaks such as raising income limit, apply to all forms of income (passive, CG, etc) or don't pay it to people people who don't need it.

 

[halik]

In for 911 truth videos!

 

[a777pilot]

1. Social Security needs to raise the age of retirement True


2. Social Security is going bankrupt True


3. Social Security should be privatized True

All three statements are true.

 

[Engineer]

All three statements are true.

Good luck in getting SS privatized right now with the decade long market stagnation and recent drops. But I'm sure that someone will jump in behind me and tell me that over the long term, people with be getting huge gains...guaranteed.

By the way, "when" we cut SS, it's got to be retroactive to current people on the system. I mean, they paid lower rates up until the 80's and expect to draw full benefits while the rest of us take cuts while paying higher rates our entire lives. I'm sure that will go over very well though, especially since we've taken 2.5 trillion more than spent out of their/our checks and now, we can't pay so go away.

 

[Craig234]

All three statements are true.

While I appreciate you posting those substantive arguments for your position, I said:

If you respond to the thread, please say if you watched it, I'm leaning toward only reading replies that begin by saying they did.

It's the topic, not parroted posts rehashing 'opinions on Social Security' and such - opinions which are ok to argue with the points above and in the video, after watching it.

 

[nick1985]

didnt watch it

 

[mchammer187]

SS has been in red last two years. 40 and 60 billion respectively. In other words that came out of general budget since there is no "trust fund", that was spent to give tax breaks to wealthy and kept everyone happy so I'm not really sure that it's not "bankrupt" but it certainly is "short". It would be in black easy though with tweaks such as raising income limit, apply to all forms of income (passive, CG, etc) or don't pay it to people people who don't need it.

There is a trust fund or are you going to say our Debt is at 12.1 Trillion instead of 14.6 Trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

 

[mchammer187]

All three statements are true.

3 Is definitely False. It should be abolished before it is privatized. I could see it being a TSP like fund where everyone's money is separate but that is a far cry from private.

EDIT I watched the video nowhere in the video and no where does it present facts to dispute it #1 it just says since the Koch's funded it than it is automatically false no where does it present its case for 1, 2 or 3?

SS will be bankrupt by 2035-2040ish at its current rate if nothing is done so #1 and #2 are true its just not as dire as people say it is. The earlier we do do something about it though the easier and more fair it will be for everyone so that the burden is no unfairly shifted toward any one generation.

 

[nonlnear]

1. Social Security needs to raise the age of retirement

Actually, this is the most sympathetic of the three - because things have changed drastically since Social Security was created. It did have the age raised before.

But counterpoints are that there are better ways to improve the finances of Social Security, if needed (see point #2), and that this takes jobs from other Americans.

(Which increases the labor pool, which reduces the cost of labor, helping the wealthy).

Oh goodness not the lump of labor. Retirement helps the labor market by making fewer citizens produce wealth? Really? I'm not sure even Krugman would make a blunder that bad.

 

[Throckmorton]

Oh goodness not the lump of labor. Retirement helps the labor market by making fewer citizens produce wealth? Really? I'm not sure even Krugman would make a blunder that bad.

He's saying that old people working to survive decreases labor cost by increasing the supply... Another reason that the wealthy despise Social Security. They want you working until you die.

 

[glenn1]

First, no one still alive gives the Democrats any "credit" for Social Security - since it's basically a non-prefunded retirement system, the only people who would give the Democrats credit would be the first recipients who basically got free money after token contributions. The problem is that all those folks are now dead; for everyone else, they're just hoping to live long enough to get back what they put in without Congress reneging on the deal. I'm not sure what "credit" you think we've giving politicians for putting us in this situation.

As far as "going bankrupt," it's pay-as-you-go so the term is meaningless either way. Sure, there's a projected future shortfall, but Congress could change the payroll tax inputs or the payouts to current recipients tomorrow, making it all a moot point. The so called "trust fund" has only special issue treasury bonds in it (IOUs from one government agency to another), so you couldn't even liquidate the program in the sense you could a business.

Last, privatizing isn't as horrifying to most people as you imagine. Sure, there would be some fees, but they'd be chump change compared to what people are used to government taking from them anyway. And I'd rather have an ownership stake in something that was subject to fees (even high ones) rather than the current situation, where Congress could end the program immediately with no recourse to anyone. Or I die tomorrow, which means the government simply pockets all the money I've paid in over the years.

 

[Craig234]

3 Is definitely False. It should be abolished before it is privatized. I could see it being a TSP like fund where everyone's money is separate but that is a far cry from private.

EDIT I watched the video nowhere in the video and no where does it present facts to dispute it #1 it just says since the Koch's funded it than it is automatically false no where does it present its case for 1, 2 or 3?

SS will be bankrupt by 2035-2040ish at its current rate if nothing is done so #1 and #2 are true its just not as dire as people say it is. The earlier we do do something about it though the easier and more fair it will be for everyone so that the burden is no unfairly shifted toward any one generation.

Sorry, to be clear, the commentary is partly describing the video and partly my own.

SS will never be "bankrupt". It will not be able to pay 100% if nothing is done - maybe 80%.

But nothing won't be done (that's a tricky phrasing, I should just say but something will be done.) The scare tactics are just for the reasons I mentioned - and are corrupt.

And thanks for watching the video. Any other reaction?

 

[Hacp]

Social security is bullshit. Get rid of it along with medicare. That will make it cheaper for employers to hire empolyees.

 

[nobodyknows]

All three statements are true.

4. All goverment jobs and pensions pay too much. True


http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/federal-pension-reform

The Washington Post reports that both Republicans and Democrats are looking to require federal employees to pick up a larger share of their pension contributions. The article notes that federal employees enjoy benefits that aren’t available to most private sector workers:
It’s the same argument public workers have confronted for months from critics who compare their job security and salaries with millions of private-sector workers who have lost jobs or faced pay cuts.
Today, half of private companies offer any kind of retirement plan at all. And the majority of those offer employees 401(k)-style plans, which have taken big hits in the stock market in recent years. Less than 1 in 5 workers at private companies have traditional pensions, down from half in the early 1980s, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
A Cato essay on overpaid federal workers shows that the federal pay advantage over private workers has been increasing steadily over the past decade. Therefore, it’s good news that policymakers are interested in reforms that would shift more of the burden toward privileged federal workers and away from taxpayers.

 

[nobodyknows]

First, no one still alive gives the Democrats any "credit" for Social Security - since it's basically a non-prefunded retirement system, the only people who would give the Democrats credit would be the first recipients who basically got free money after token contributions. The problem is that all those folks are now dead; for everyone else, they're just hoping to live long enough to get back what they put in without Congress reneging on the deal. I'm not sure what "credit" you think we've giving politicians for putting us in this situation.

As far as "going bankrupt," it's pay-as-you-go so the term is meaningless either way. Sure, there's a projected future shortfall, but Congress could change the payroll tax inputs or the payouts to current recipients tomorrow, making it all a moot point. The so called "trust fund" has only special issue treasury bonds in it (IOUs from one government agency to another), so you couldn't even liquidate the program in the sense you could a business.

Last, privatizing isn't as horrifying to most people as you imagine. Sure, there would be some fees, but they'd be chump change compared to what people are used to government taking from them anyway. And I'd rather have an ownership stake in something that was subject to fees (even high ones) rather than the current situation, where Congress could end the program immediately with no recourse to anyone. Or I die tomorrow, which means the government simply pockets all the money I've paid in over the years.

Privatizing SS would be 10 times the mistake that invading Iraq was.

 

[Craig234]

Social security is bullshit.

While I appreciate you posting those substantive arguments for your position, I said:

If you respond to the thread, please say if you watched it, I'm leaning toward only reading replies that begin by saying they did.

It's the topic, not parroted posts rehashing 'opinions on Social Security' and such - opinions which are ok to argue with the points above and in the video, after watching it.

 

[glenn1]

Privatizing SS would be 10 times the mistake that invading Iraq was.

I've provided reasons why it could be a positive, could you elaborate on your reasons why you feel otherwise?

 

[nobodyknows]

I've provided reasons why it could be a positive, could you elaborate on your reasons why you feel otherwise?

"could" you say?? LOL, you want me to refute "could be better"?? In oher words, "Don't bet the farm on it."?? LOL!!

 

[matt0611]

Oh goodness not the lump of labor. Retirement helps the labor market by making fewer citizens produce wealth? Really? I'm not sure even Krugman would make a blunder that bad.

Yeah, I mean, there's just too many people ya know, it would be better for supply of labor would be really low. Like if the world only had 1000 people in it, then everyone could have jobs right? I mean, there would never be a shortage of jobs if we had less people. So its better that people just collect checks than to work, we wouldn't want them producing anything of value would we? adding to the supply of labor.

After all, there's only a finite amount of work to be done on the earth.
We can't have everyone working, that would just be bad.

 

[Sinsear]

I watched it.

Craig's a douche.












I didn't really watch it, but Craig is still a douche.

 

[Engineer]

I've provided reasons why it could be a positive, could you elaborate on your reasons why you feel otherwise?

Who holds the money?

What happens if you become permanently disabled?

Would there still be a safety net?

What can you invest in?

What if you lose a huge portion of your money?

What if you run out of money?

If you die young, will there be a safety net for your kids?

What happens to the employer match? (Does employee get it or does it go back to the corporation?)

Can the average person on the street take care of their own retirement or will we back in this same spot a generation later?

What if the fund/investments/etc. that you are investing in goes belly up?

Would there need to be regulations on types or ratings (AAA only? ) of the investments allowed?

Would this money be tax free or tax deferred (current is not)?

What about current retirees or those near SS collection age? Who pays for them? Do we continue to pay for them and lose our portion paid in?

Lots of questions before I can give pros and cons of such a private system.

 

[glenn1]

Who holds the money?

What happens if you become permanently disabled?

Would there still be a safety net?

What can you invest in?

What if you lose a huge portion of your money?

What if you run out of money?

If you die young, will there be a safety net for your kids?

What happens to the employer match? (Does employee get it or does it go back to the corporation?)

Can the average person on the street take care of their own retirement or will we back in this same spot a generation later?

What if the fund/investments/etc. that you are investing in goes belly up?

Would there need to be regulations on types or ratings (AAA only? ) of the investments allowed?

Would this money be tax free or tax deferred (current is not)?

What about current retirees or those near SS collection age? Who pays for them? Do we continue to pay for them and lose our portion paid in?

Lots of questions before I can give pros and cons of such a private system.

All reasonable questions. My personal plan would be to convert from a current pay-as-you-go system, to one where payroll tax withholdings are used to purchase Treasury Bills which are personally owned by the future retiree and held in a government escrow account. At least this way the beneficiaries have an actual ownership interest in the system, whereas now they have nothing but a promise from Congress (which to me is worth less than nothing). Also, it provides everyone with an incentive to not blow up the federal budget (since it might impact the ability of the Feds to pay off the bonds in their account).

 

[trenchfoot]

Koch brothers are an absolute known entity that wishes to dismantle any gov't program, any union and any private entity that gets in their way.

That's as obvious as Fox "News" is a propaganda outlet for the brothers.

There are millions of middle class and poor who will depend on SS as their primary source of income when they retire. That's just the way it is. Millions of them never bought a single share of stock or invested any part of their income in their whole lives because they needed every cent of it just to pay rent and feed the kids. If they could, they wouldn't pay into SS, not because they'd rather invest it, but because it would pay for essentials that they are now doing without.

Investments are a gamble, plain and simple. SS is not, in the sense that it wouldn't just vaporize like investments would if the market tanked badly. The middle class and poor who are struggling just to get by cannot afford to take risks just so that Wall Street can squeeze them out of income that they cannot do without.

By investing funds that would have gone into SS, these middle class and poor are now firmly in the grasp of profiteers that would like nothing better than to strip these novices of every cent they dump into the market. For these folks with limited financial resources and knowledge, they'd have better luck going to Vegas. The Wall Streeters would pick them clean from so many different angles way before they knew what hit them.

After all, the market is THE place where everyone is out to make a killing, and the insiders who control the market will always get the lion's share from whoever that dares to place a bet, losers be damned. That's not a place to put funds where every cent counts.

There are those of us who can invest conservatively and build a nice nestegg out of it and there are those who can't or won't because of the fear of the unknown (the market). To tempt them out of any part of their one reliable and primary source of retirement income and have them gamble with that essential income on the market is unconscionable.

And for what purpose? Just to provide the Wall Streeters with more easy pickings? For those folks that I'm referring to, that's what it amounts to.