The Media and Social Security

[jlw]

**MSM Social Security SOTU Coverage **

Look at the effusive praise from the MSM for the “bold” and “bipartisan” effort to transform Social Security “so that individuals would have more freedom and responsibility to save for their own retirements.]”
An effort “to craft a bipartisan bill to assure Social Security’s solvency,” says the Los Angeles Times.’

“A bold move to put the future of the massive retirement program at the top of his agenda,” says The Washington Post.

“They still must resolve an emotional ideological debate over whether the government should continue to take money from the working-age generation and transfer it to retirees . . . or whether Social Security should be transformed so that individuals would have more freedom and responsibility to save for their own retirements,” says the New York Times.

George W. Bush last night? No, William Jefferson Clinton in 1998.

Here’s how they sound today:

“Oh, my God,” one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. “The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board.” Says the L.A. Times.

But the president declined to take ownership of any of these politically risky changes, offering them instead as the ideas offered in the past by other politicians, all Democrats as it turned out, says The Washinton Post.

His avoidance of specifics appeared deliberate. The Bush team well knows how critics of the Clinton administration’s heavily detailed health care proposal - submitted to Congress as a pre-baked package - picked it apart and defeated it a decade ago, says The New York Times.
Anyone remember any specifics from Clinton? Uhm, no. I wonder if the media’s liberal or has recently decided to hold Presidents to a higher standard? I sit, put finger to chin, look to the horizon, furrow my brow, and wonder…

mytwocommoncents.blogspot.com/

 

[Lance]

The reason the liberals don’t want any change in Social Security is because they fear that people would accumulate some wealth and no longer depend on government handouts for their retirement. I know that the Social Security is not a handout per se but the government controls the purse strings, so you are dependant on them. If people accumulated their own retirement and it was substantial they probably would no longer vote Democrat. They would also be free to pass their money down to their children or grandchildren.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Lance,

I think your last point is the most critical…people can pass their retirement savings on to their children or loved ones…that is a huge point. Right now no-one can do that with social security…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Amen!

In the last year for which we have figures (2003) the Social Security surplus was $179 Billion dollars. That’s about a thousand dollars for every working American. That money was ripped off and squandered by Congress.

Imagine if every American was able to save that much, each year, in a decent Mutual Fund or similar investment!!

I have been working this issue for some time (I ran for Congress last year) and developed a plan – under this plan, you’d get to save and invest your share of the surplus. I constructed a computer model (as pessimistic a model as I could devise) and it shows that you can guarentee everyone their Social Security benefits – but the first dollars would come from their investments.

The model also shows:

        The surplus would steadily increase -- because as people  retired with more and more of their Social Security entitlement paid from their own investments, the Social Security Admnistration would be paying out less and less money.

         Between the 33rd and 34th we would reach the crossover point.  People who had worked steadily would have 100% of their entitlement from their investments.

          From that point, a cascade effect would occur -- the surplus would be so large that by the 40th year people would have enough in their investments to completely replace their working wage.

           Beyond the 40th year, most people would be retiring as true millionaries.

           There would always be enough money in the system to pay for the widows, orphans and disabled.

Then I look back and say, “Why didn’t we do this in 1945? We’d ALL be wealthy today!!”

Social Security as it exists today is a drain on the economy and an unconsciable rip-off of the working class.

(If anyone wants the model, I can produce a Microsofe Excell version and email it to you.)

 

[jlw]

Did anyone see or hear the story about thes black man who spent 30 years paying into SS and his wife only got $250.00 because he died at 55. Now liberals think this is okay? Had he been able to put a small portion of that in a private account his wife would’ve inherited it. She lost her house.

Is it true that blacks are 77% more likely to die before retirement age than whites and on average every black family gives 10k to white women?? Wow. If true, what a travsty if this is allowed to continue. These men work 30 years and because of life expectancy they and their families are discriminated against?

What do you think??

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It should be remembered that at the start Social Security had a huge surplus. Everyone was paying in and few were collecting.

In the 30’s and 40’s this surplus was dissipated by easing the conditions for receiving. This took the load off of Old Age Pensions and other government programs.

Social Security was then intended to be a pay as you go program with no surplus.

Unfortunately, with the population bust, we have an ever increasing number receiving, while the growth of the paying population has slowed and may soon reverse.

We must now find a way to pay for the largess of Congress in the 30’s and 40’s.

I think Ponze went to jail for running a private system on these principles.

 

[katherine2]

jlw:

Did anyone see or hear the story about thes black man who spent 30 years paying into SS and his wife only got $250.00 because he died at 55. Now liberals think this is okay? Had he been able to put a small portion of that in a private account his wife would’ve inherited it. She lost her house.

What do you think??

I don’t see how that is possible udner Social Security.

 

[jlw]

katherine2:

I don’t see how that is possible udner Social Security.

How so??

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Joe Kelley:

It should be remembered that at the start Social Security had a huge surplus. Everyone was paying in and few were collecting.

In the 30’s and 40’s this surplus was dissipated by easing the conditions for receiving. This took the load off of Old Age Pensions and other government programs.

Social Security was then intended to be a pay as you go program with no surplus.

Unfortunately, with the population bust, we have an ever increasing number receiving, while the growth of the paying population has slowed and may soon reverse.

We must now find a way to pay for the largess of Congress in the 30’s and 40’s.

I think Ponze went to jail for running a private system on these principles.

Thank you for stating the truth. I get gasps and snickers all around whenever I mention this, but I think SS is an immoral scheme. It takes money from one group of people by force of law and gives it to another group of people (who by the way are the richest demographic in the country). It also usurps the role of extended family in caring for the older generation.

 

[jlw]

StJeanneDArc:

Thank you for stating the truth. I get gasps and snickers all around whenever I mention this, but I think SS is an immoral scheme. It takes money from one group of people by force of law and gives it to another group of people (who by the way are the richest demographic in the country). It also usurps the role of extended family in caring for the older generation.

An you know why they are rich??? Oh, by some “risky scheme” (AlGorism), me thinks!!

(It’s called long-term investing, folks!!)

 

[katherine2]

jlw:

How so??

$250 is the death benefit you get when your spouse dies. If he paid into Social Security she should get a survivor’s benefit equal to what his full benefit would have been. She also would be eligable for Medicare on his record. And, if she has children, she would get an additional widow’s and children’s benefit. So I don’t understand how she got nothing but the death benefit.

 

[jlw]

$250 is the death benefit you get when your spouse dies. If he paid into Social Security she should get a survivor’s benefit equal to what his full benefit would have been. She also would be eligable for Medicare on his record. And, if she has children, she would get an additional widow’s and children’s benefit. So I don’t understand how she got nothing but the death benefit.

Right, AND in THIRTY YEARS…all she gets are government death benefits???

Again, if even just 4% of all his payroll taxes were put into a long-term investment vehicle, it would not only been a decent-sized account, it ALL would have been HERS to do what she wished.

 

[caroljm36]

It’s supposed to be an insurance system and that’s how insurance works–it’s like gambling. Some people collect and some don’t. That’s why I don’t see how they could ever get away with means-testing. What will they test for? And just wait and see all the maneuvers people will go through to hide their assets. It’ll be the big tax dodge or Medicaid fraud times ten. Everyone wants everything they think they have coming. My dad was pretty well off, a millionaire I guess, but he wasn’t about to turn up his nose at $9000 a year in SS either, OR the Medicare that goes with it.

 

[katherine2]

jlw:

Right, AND in THIRTY YEARS…all she gets are government death benefits???

Again, if even just 4% of all his payroll taxes were put into a long-term investment vehicle, it would not only been a decent-sized account, it ALL would have been HERS to do what she wished.

So I don’t understand. The claim was she got $250 and nothing more (the death benefit is actually $255, but not to quibble). But she also should have been eligible for full Social Security benefits for every month for the rest of her life plus Medicare. So why does this guy say she got $250 and nothing more?

 

[caroljm36]

katherine2:

So I don’t understand. The claim was she got $250 and nothing more (the death benefit is actually $255, but not to quibble). But she also should have been eligible for full Social Security benefits for every month for the rest of her life plus Medicare. So why does this guy say she got $250 and nothing more?

She could collect when she turns 62 or 65, I forget which. Maybe both. A kid in school can collect to age 19 also.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

caroljm36:

It’s supposed to be an insurance system and that’s how insurance works–it’s like gambling. Some people collect and some don’t. That’s why I don’t see how they could ever get away with means-testing. What will they test for? And just wait and see all the maneuvers people will go through to hide their assets. My dad was pretty well off, a millionaire I guess, but he wasn’t about to turn up his nose at $9000 a year in SS either, OR the Medicare that goes with it.

Some insurance scheme…the premiums are mandatory, the return is negative for people in the middle quintile of income earners.

No, thank you. I’ll buy my own insurance.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

StJeanneDArc:

Thank you for stating the truth. I get gasps and snickers all around whenever I mention this, but I think SS is an immoral scheme. It takes money from one group of people by force of law and gives it to another group of people (who by the way are the richest demographic in the country). It also usurps the role of extended family in caring for the older generation.

I fail to see how it is an immoral scheme. It was designed and intended to insure at least a minimum of dignity in old age, something a our country should be proud of. Who is the money being taken from? These people paid into it, they should expect something out of it. Having said all of that, I readily acknowledge that I don’t understand the ins and outs of all this and I would be glad to be educated by anyone willing to speak to me respectfully. I’m assured that my nearly 88 year old grandfather (a frugal farmer who paid into Social Security) will not have a reduction in his benefits. And I guess his example is one reason why I MIGHT have doubts about personal accounts. He built up a substantial nest egg over his and my grandmother’s life, saved carefully, sold the farm when he was 70 for a very nice figure (it was bought by developers), and lived very simply after my grandmother’s death (may she rest in everlasting peace). BUT…after 9/11, he took a hit in the stock market and his nest egg was reduced by half. What with low interest rates for the longest time, his CD’s weren’t paying that much. He pretty much lived (and with dignity) on SS. Now he’s in an independent living situation, which is covered by SS and the interest he gets on his CD’s/investments. That’s fine for now, barring an outrageous increase in inflation (but then his CDs would be worth more). Should he, however, require nursing home care (running to the tune of about 6000.00 per month, now), that’s going to deplete his
savings and prinicipal fairly quickly. We come from long-lived people (his father died at 95). He’s fortunate enough to have my mother and five grandchildren and we could make it work…unless the price of a nursing home went up drastically. I guess my question is, how can we insure a degree of dignity and quality of life for our elderly? I’m not worried about it for myself. I taught for 11 years in New Mexico, where teachers pay in to SS and a pension fund, then moved to Nevada, where part of my reimbursement is that my district pays for my state retirement. That leaves me money to save on my own as well. Nevada teachers don’t pay into SS, so I won’t make much, though I do think I’m owed something since I’ve paid into it since I was 15. I don’t think I would oppose a plan with part of the money going into personal accounts. What are the pros and cons?

 

[rwoehmke]

caroljm36:

It’s supposed to be an insurance system and that’s how insurance works–it’s like gambling. Some people collect and some don’t. That’s why I don’t see how they could ever get away with means-testing. What will they test for? And just wait and see all the maneuvers people will go through to hide their assets. It’ll be the big tax dodge or Medicaid fraud times ten. Everyone wants everything they think they have coming. My dad was pretty well off, a millionaire I guess, but he wasn’t about to turn up his nose at $9000 a year in SS either, OR the Medicare that goes with it.

It was intended to be like a reverse term insurance not everyone would get their money back if they died too soon. Only thoing is the government just couldn’t see letting all those bucks collect interest or dividends in a seperate investment, so they borrowed it at interest for government spending. When payback time came instead of paying back the loan they basically pulled a ponzee scheme and used income to pay the benifits of those still alive at 65.It is not a Republican or Democrat thing, its just a goverment which either can’t or is unwilling to pay back what they owe from the general fund. Many politicians are very friendly glad handing people, but if you turn your back on them, brace yourself…

 

[katherine2]

caroljm36:

She could collect when she turns 62 or 65, I forget which. Maybe both. A kid in school can collect to age 19 also.

She can collect benefits at age 60. If she has children or is disabled, she gets benefits at any age.

So I don’t understand her situation. If she is a young, childless, able bodied widow, I would think she would work until age 60 and then get Social Security and Medicare. It still makes no sense to me.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

JKirkLVNV:

I fail to see how it is an immoral scheme. It was designed and intended to insure at least a minimum of dignity in old age, something a our country should be proud of. Who is the money being taken from? These people paid into it, they should expect something out of it. Having said all of that, I readily acknowledge that I don’t understand the ins and outs of all this and I would be glad to be educated by anyone willing to speak to me respectfully.

I haven’t read up on Bush’s proposals, so I’ll speak about the basics of how SS actually works today. We all pay 12.4% of our income up to $90,000. All money paid out to SS recipients comes from current taxpayers, and this was true from the beginning. There have never been any assets in the system. Any money your grandfather paid into the system is gone. It went to whoever was receiving it then.

Currently there is a slight surplus of payments into the system. The government uses that surplus in the general fund to pay for other expenses. The government cannot by law go out and buy some huge CD or mutual fund with those excess funds. And really, that makes sense, too. We can’t have the US government bestowing that kind of taxpayer largesse on some private bank or investment firm.

There are two reasons why I think it’s immoral. The first is that SS is what they euphemistically call a “pay-as-you-go” scheme and what the justice department calls a pyramid scheme. It is wrong to forcefully take money from one group of people and bestow it on another group of people. The second reason why I think it is wrong is that it is compulsory. It is wrong for the government to tell me that this is the minimum I have to set aside for a retirement scheme (or insurance for those of you who prefer that term)–a sum that the government will decide who to bestow it on.