Social Security Admin. Altered Communications Strategy to Undermine Public Confidence

[conjur]

First we had the Iraq on the Record report which showed how the Bush administration used propaganda to intimate that Saddam Hussein was linked to the 9/11 attacks and shift the focus of the American people from the war on terror into supporting an invasion of Iraq.

Then we had the Secrecy in the Bush Administration report which showed how the Bush administration has worked to keep the government operating in the dark and denying FOIA requests.

Now we have the THE POLITICIZATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION which, to summarize:

A new report released by Reps. Waxman, Rangel, and Levin, along with Democratic Leader Pelosi, Democratic Whip Hoyer, and Reps. Obey, Miller, and DeLauro, details how the Social Security Administration has systematically altered its public communications to foster the impression that Social Security is ?unsustainable? and ?must change.?

Rep. Waxman deserves the Watchdog of the Millennium Award!

I wonder how long until our media finally catches on to the deception and propaganda being waged by this administration and finally starts reporting on it with a critical eye?

 

[SuperTool]

It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

Aye, if SS was such an emergency, wouldn't Bush's agenda "stand on its own two feet?"

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

It is underhanded for SS to talk about their coming funding problems? I guess you would rather ignore these problem until they are really big problem.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

It is underhanded for SS to talk about their coming funding problems? I guess you would rather ignore these problem until they are really big problem.

Eliminate the income cap on FICA taxes. The system will then be "sustainable" for 75 years. Actually it may be sustainable for longer than 75 years but that's as far as the SS administration projects.

Everyone, including the Republicans, realize Bush's SS destruction plan is dead. Live with it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Don't get too confident about it being "dead", guys- The repub leadership could easily force a vote during a terrar alert, or the day we attack Iran...

They're still at it, sliming the AARP, shuckin' and jivin', stalling, trying to create an opening... this change in tone from the SSA is all part of it...

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

It is underhanded for SS to talk about their coming funding problems? I guess you would rather ignore these problem until they are really big problem.

It's underhanded for SSA to take sides in this debate. SSA should execute its responsibilities, not define them. That is the job for the Congress. They can post their number projections and let the general public decide for itself if it's sustainable or in crisis.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

It is underhanded for SS to talk about their coming funding problems? I guess you would rather ignore these problem until they are really big problem.

It's underhanded for SSA to take sides in this debate. SSA should execute its responsibilities, not define them. That is the job for the Congress. They can post their number projections and let the general public decide for itself if it's sustainable or in crisis.

I read the article, I dont see the SS admin taking sides. The problem was clearly stated without bias. I mean after even when it was stated nicely in previous years, the previous admin thought SS needed reform as well.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't get too confident about it being "dead", guys- The repub leadership could easily force a vote during a terrar alert, or the day we attack Iran...

They're still at it, sliming the AARP, shuckin' and jivin', stalling, trying to create an opening... this change in tone from the SSA is all part of it...

The AARP is getting slimed because they are paying for dishonest surverys and pushing risky market funds to its members.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

It is underhanded for SS to talk about their coming funding problems? I guess you would rather ignore these problem until they are really big problem.

It's underhanded for SSA to take sides in this debate. SSA should execute its responsibilities, not define them. That is the job for the Congress. They can post their number projections and let the general public decide for itself if it's sustainable or in crisis.

I read the article, I dont see the SS admin taking sides. The problem was clearly stated without bias. I mean after even when it was stated nicely in previous years, the previous admin thought SS needed reform as well.

SS reform comes from Congress, not SSA. Instead of whining about unsustainability, why doesn't SSA invest in bonds with higher returns? If it's going to need the money 20 years from now, why is it not buying 20 year loans with higher interest instead of 6 year loans with lower interest?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't get too confident about it being "dead", guys- The repub leadership could easily force a vote during a terrar alert, or the day we attack Iran...

They're still at it, sliming the AARP, shuckin' and jivin', stalling, trying to create an opening... this change in tone from the SSA is all part of it...

The AARP is getting slimed because they are paying for dishonest surverys and pushing risky market funds to its members.

So shouldn't Bush get slimed for exact same reasons?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't get too confident about it being "dead", guys- The repub leadership could easily force a vote during a terrar alert, or the day we attack Iran...

They're still at it, sliming the AARP, shuckin' and jivin', stalling, trying to create an opening... this change in tone from the SSA is all part of it...

The AARP is getting slimed because they are paying for dishonest surverys and pushing risky market funds to its members.

So shouldn't Bush get slimed for exact same reasons?

When did push publish a false survey about demand for SS reform or says the market was risky while selling market funds?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

It is underhanded for SS to talk about their coming funding problems? I guess you would rather ignore these problem until they are really big problem.

It's underhanded for SSA to take sides in this debate. SSA should execute its responsibilities, not define them. That is the job for the Congress. They can post their number projections and let the general public decide for itself if it's sustainable or in crisis.

I read the article, I dont see the SS admin taking sides. The problem was clearly stated without bias. I mean after even when it was stated nicely in previous years, the previous admin thought SS needed reform as well.

SS reform comes from Congress, not SSA. Instead of whining about unsustainability, why doesn't SSA invest in bonds with higher returns? If it's going to need the money 20 years from now, why is it not buying 20 year loans with higher interest instead of 6 year loans with lower interest?

Because it can only do what congress tells it to do. Right now congress gets to spend the surplus, but I guess you want the SS admin to shut up and wait for the congress to start to behave.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

It is underhanded for SS to talk about their coming funding problems? I guess you would rather ignore these problem until they are really big problem.

It's underhanded for SSA to take sides in this debate. SSA should execute its responsibilities, not define them. That is the job for the Congress. They can post their number projections and let the general public decide for itself if it's sustainable or in crisis.

I read the article, I dont see the SS admin taking sides. The problem was clearly stated without bias. I mean after even when it was stated nicely in previous years, the previous admin thought SS needed reform as well.

SS reform comes from Congress, not SSA. Instead of whining about unsustainability, why doesn't SSA invest in bonds with higher returns? If it's going to need the money 20 years from now, why is it not buying 20 year loans with higher interest instead of 6 year loans with lower interest?

Because it can only do what congress tells it to do. Right now congress gets to spend the surplus, but I guess you want the SS admin to shut up and wait for the congress to start to behave.

Does the Congress specify the maturities of the bonds that SS buys?
Right now it's buying ones with lowest possible interest. I want to see what law requires it to do that.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

It is underhanded for SS to talk about their coming funding problems? I guess you would rather ignore these problem until they are really big problem.

It's underhanded for SSA to take sides in this debate. SSA should execute its responsibilities, not define them. That is the job for the Congress. They can post their number projections and let the general public decide for itself if it's sustainable or in crisis.

I read the article, I dont see the SS admin taking sides. The problem was clearly stated without bias. I mean after even when it was stated nicely in previous years, the previous admin thought SS needed reform as well.

SS reform comes from Congress, not SSA. Instead of whining about unsustainability, why doesn't SSA invest in bonds with higher returns? If it's going to need the money 20 years from now, why is it not buying 20 year loans with higher interest instead of 6 year loans with lower interest?

Because it can only do what congress tells it to do. Right now congress gets to spend the surplus, but I guess you want the SS admin to shut up and wait for the congress to start to behave.

Does the Congress specify the maturities of the bonds that SS buys?
Right now it's buying ones with lowest possible interest. I want to see what law requires it to do that.

I would guess it the law that says the funds must be spent and replaced with goverment treasuries. You know that law that lbj used to take SS supluses off the budget.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't get too confident about it being "dead", guys- The repub leadership could easily force a vote during a terrar alert, or the day we attack Iran...

They're still at it, sliming the AARP, shuckin' and jivin', stalling, trying to create an opening... this change in tone from the SSA is all part of it...

The AARP is getting slimed because they are paying for dishonest surverys and pushing risky market funds to its members.

AARP can justify pushing risky market funds to its members. If anything goes wrong they can always depend on SS . . .

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't get too confident about it being "dead", guys- The repub leadership could easily force a vote during a terrar alert, or the day we attack Iran...

They're still at it, sliming the AARP, shuckin' and jivin', stalling, trying to create an opening... this change in tone from the SSA is all part of it...

The AARP is getting slimed because they are paying for dishonest surverys and pushing risky market funds to its members.

AARP can justify pushing risky market funds to its members. If anything goes wrong they can always depend on SS . . .

Well I will have to disagree. Market funds are either risky or they are not.

 

[dannybin1742]

anytime you are investing in anything, there is always risks involved, there are no risk free investments, just low risk investments, wake up

the last 5 years have created the perfect storm for any republicans who have always hated social programs

it was simple too

spend the surplus, including borrowing against the SS trust
cut taxes on the wealthy
go to war


now they can truthfully say there is problem, but they created it, so the only way to fix it it to cut spending on social programs even though 80% of the budget is spent on our military machine............. go figure :roll:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
anytime you are investing in anything, there is always risks involved, there are no risk free investments, just low risk investments, wake up

the last 5 years have created the perfect storm for any republicans who have always hated social programs

it was simple too

spend the surplus, including borrowing against the SS trust
cut taxes on the wealthy
go to war


now they can truthfully say there is problem, but they created it, so the only way to fix it it to cut spending on social programs even though 80% of the budget is spent on our military machine............. go figure :roll:

Well dont left facts get in the way of your rantes. Our military only consumes about 20% of the budget. Medicare/SS consume over 50%.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Does the Congress specify the maturities of the bonds that SS buys?
Right now it's buying ones with lowest possible interest. I want to see what law requires it to do that.

I would guess it the law that says the funds must be spent and replaced with goverment treasuries. You know that law that lbj used to take SS supluses off the budget.

This is where the privatizers have a point. There is a conflict of interest when Congress borrows money from SS. The best interest of SS is to get a good return on surplus funds, while the best interest of government is to get the lowest rate on money borrowed. I'm not sure how the trustee relationship is structured, but it seems that they do not have enough authority over the fund.

 

[Tylanner]

Regardless of the feasibility of privatization, it is at the very least putting SS reform on the table. Any SS plan no matter how logical and thought out will face an uphill battle in getting passed.

I'm far from a financial or SS whiz but I think we need baby steps, instead of Bush's overhaul.

 

[StageLeft]

I endorse any lying Bush feels he needs to do for SSA. The general public should be absolved of having any say in the matter, since their financial maturity is well documented and proven to consistently be bad, so anything he tells them they should do, they should.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

Aye, if SS was such an emergency, wouldn't Bush's agenda "stand on its own two feet?"

In other matters maybe, but not when it comes to finances. People just have no clue. Evidence for that is overwhelming. The public has no clue at all about finances.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

Aye, if SS was such an emergency, wouldn't Bush's agenda "stand on its own two feet?"

In other matters maybe, but not when it comes to finances. People just have no clue. Evidence for that is overwhelming. The public has no clue at all about finances.

And this administration does???

<--- watches as the debt continues to grow and grow and...

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's these underhanded tactics that make me against SS privatization.

Aye, if SS was such an emergency, wouldn't Bush's agenda "stand on its own two feet?"

In other matters maybe, but not when it comes to finances. People just have no clue. Evidence for that is overwhelming. The public has no clue at all about finances.

And this administration does???

<--- watches as the debt continues to grow and grow and...

*shrug* You just can't win either way. 😱