HombrePequeno
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2001
- 4,657
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: Craig234
And those republicans have the interests of the common guy as all they care about.
Snippy one liners don't change the fact that social security is a popular, efficient, successful program at nearly eliminating real poverty for the elderly and disabled, and all the 'reforms' o the table are aimed at virtually destroying it to remove voters of the biggest reminder of a great democrat program, skim off the money to wall street, and have a wedge issue.
It's so efficient that we'll have to raise taxes in 2018 just to pay for the outgoing benefits. Don't believe there is an actual Trust Fund. That's a load of BS.
Did you even read the proposals for Social Security partial privatization? They would in no way destroy it. The main proposal called for the option of privatization of up to 4% of your income (up to $1000) if you're under 40. How the hell would that destroy Social Security? At least two-thirds is still going to the government for redistribution to the elderly. Grannie wouldn't be SOL because she would still be paid for through other revenue.
I'll tell you the only reason why it shouldn't currently be privatized: our budget is nowhere near balanced. This coupled with the fact that the proposals weren't allowed to add in a tax increase for the transition to privatization made the ideas were pretty much DOA.
So what is your proposal to keep SS afloat? In the current situation we can either raise taxes, cut benefits, or a combination of both. Yes, we could remove the cap but that would just be delaying the inevitable as we would have to start paying for the rich as well. That also would kind of go against the idea of SS which is keeping the elderly and disabled out of poverty.
And for fvck's sake, Sweden which is one of the most socialist countries around is doing it. Doesn't that tell you that privatization isn't all bad?
That part I bolded is the fundamental problem with privatization, the explanation of how we meet CURRENT social security obligations seems to involve a lot of hand-waving and not too many real ideas. I'm not opposed to the a private system itself, but I don't see how the transition can be accomplished without screwing over people who have already paid a fair amount into social security OR spending HUGE amounts of money to make up the shortfalls such a transition would involve.
As far as Social Security being in trouble, THAT is the load of BS. Yes, there is a potential for a shortfall...there is also a potential for having more money in Social Security by 2018 than there is TODAY, in other words, no problem at all. But you want to know the real dirty secret? The shortfall could come about because the large numbers of people retiring all at once when the baby boomers start getting social security checks...and those are the very people we CAN'T trash social security for since they've spent their entire lives paying into it. Whatever we do to pay their benefits while us young folks are off investing in Enron stock could easily make up the temporary shortfall from baby boomers retiring. The problem has been dramatically overstated and the whole social security privatization debate is way more about dismantling any social program possible than it is about "saving" anything.
Current SS obligations should be paid from spending of other parts of government. That is who borrowed from SS in the first place. The only problem with that is that there needs to be a government surplus to do that otherwise we are just increasing our debt which I'd prefer not to do (this administration doesn't seem to care). There also could be an increase in the payroll tax. Unfortunately Bush wouldn't allow that option for the panel that looked into partial privatization.
I hate to tell you this but SS is in trouble. Sure, they use assumptions to figure out when SS will have a shortfall but those assumptions are fairly justified. They assume wage growth of a certain amount, amount of immigration of a certain amount, and amount of people retiring each year. For real wage growth, the situation is more likely worse than it is better. Given the recent anti-immigration sentiment, I'm not sure there will be a large influx of people. Unless there are a ton of elderly that keel over and die, I don't think the amount of retirees is likely to decrease beyond their expectations.
About the Trust Fund...well the money in that trust fund is owed from other parts of the government. Yes, they may have to pay it back with interest but the end result is still the same, it's being shifted from part of the government (SS) to another (covering up the spending of another part of government). Either way as the baby boomers retire, that's going to have to be repaid, will it not? If it was borrowed by the government how is it going to be repaid? The government can either cut spending in other areas and completely absorb all the costs from repaying or they can bring in more revenue to repay it. I'm guessing it will likely be the latter. They can also run a deficit to pay for it but considering how much the SS money is covering up right now, it wouldn't be such a great idea to fund SS obligations that way.
I'll agree with you that given our current situation with the budget, privatization isn't viable at all. Unfortunately I don't see the situation changing much over the years. The Dems say they want a balanced budget but promises aren't always kept.
