Social Security Administration Giving out "Free Lunch"

[datasuspect]

Excerpt:

""Let me state clearly that there are no free lunches here," said N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, at a conference on tax policy here.

"The benefits now scheduled for future generations under current law are not sustainable given the projected path of payroll tax revenue," he added. "They are empty promises.""

full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/politics/03social.html

i guess the "greatest generation" will be the only ones to see the benefits of useful fdr social legislation before it gets turned into a feeding trough for the corporations and government.

[sendero]

1. I've been saying that forever...

... the "greatest generation" set up a ponzi scheme that benefitted mostly them. I'm not going to go so far as to claim they did so knowingly, but it sure looks like it.

Then the boomers came along and did basically nothing about it. So there is plenty of blame to go around.

Bottom line, there is no way that SS will work in 20 years the way it works now. Either benefits will be severely cut, it will be privatized, something will happen.

[datasuspect]

2. and there will be more boomers

than there were wwII era retirees.

[rog]

4. Let's educate ourselves on Social Security

I'm sorry I don't have the link to this article any more. I thought it was so good that I copied the text and saved it. I should have copied the link, as well. I'm going to risk getting scolded and post the whole thing in the interest of raising the level of discussion. Again, I'm sorry I can't remember the source of this column, but here you go.

.rog.

The truths vs. the myths about Social Security
Saul Friedman
November 27, 2004

The e-mail from Rich S. gives us an opportunity to assert some truths about the nation's 70-year-old Social Security System, which may help prevent the Bush administration from souring the coming Social Security debate with the kind of lies that got us into a war.

Rich of Mount Sinai, who drives a school bus, will be going on Social Security next year at age 62, and he'll get a smaller benefit than he'd receive if he waited until he's 66. "To me, this is a penalty for taking it early," he writes, "so why is the government taking one dollar for every two I make over $11,600? Is there a person I can write to voice my displeasure?"

Maybe an explanation will help. In 1983, in an effort to strengthen Social Security, President Ronald Reagan appointed a commission, headed by present Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to make fixes to the system and build its trust funds so it could pay benefits for the 74 million boomers who start retiring at the end of this decade.

The commission raised payroll taxes to the current 12.4 percent, split between employer and employee. It raised the retirement age to 67, while retaining the early retirement option of 62. But "if you start receiving retirement at 62," said the Social Security Web site, "you will get 80 percent of the monthly benefit because you will be getting benefits for an additional 36 months."

When Social Security became law (over Republican opposition) it was feared that retirees would continue to work and take jobs away from younger workers. Thus for years Congress reduced benefits by a dollar for every two dollars earned over a certain limit, which saved money for the system. But a few years ago, as more retirees went to work, Congress phased out the penalty for beneficiaries over 65. But not for Rich, although he and others like him may earn as much as $12,000 next year without a reduction.

The 1983 changes in the law also rebut a pervasive myth designed to discredit Social Security: that members of Congress think so little of the system that they and other federal employees don't contribute to it. Wrong, says Social Security.

Since January 1984, "All members of Congress, the president, vice president, federal judges and most political appointees" have been covered by Social Security, says Social Security Online. Previously, they were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System. They could retain these benefits or switch to Social Security. Now, all federal employees must enroll in the program.

Social Security taxes were never deductible, but for years the Treasury Department held that Social Security income was not taxable. That changed under Reagan in 1983, when Congress approved a Greenspan Commission proposal to tax up to half of Social Security benefits for persons with relatively high incomes. In 1993, the Clinton administration raised to 85 percent the portion of Social Security benefits taxed, for higher-income persons. The taxes were earmarked for Medicare.

The Greenspan Commission produced many more lesser changes (see www.ssa.gov), but they added up to new security for Social Security and a huge buildup of the trust fund to pay for the boomers. And no matter what you may hear from the administration:

1. Social Security is not in crisis and nowhere near bankruptcy. If nothing is done and the economy grows at a snail's pace, the Social Security retirement system would begin dipping into the trust fund in 2018 to pay benefits. But the system's Republican trustees say the trust fund, with assets of $1.8 trillion (which continues to grow from interest paid on its Treasury holdings), can pay full benefits until 2042, when the youngest boomers will be 78. And if need be, it can continue to pay 70 percent of benefits until 2078.

2. But if the economy does better and Congress makes slight adjustments, more modest than in 1983, like raising payroll taxes 1 percent and ending the wage ceiling on which taxes are collected, Social Security would remain in the black, guaranteeing inflation-adjusted pensions for millions of Americans into the next century. The generation following the boomers is considerably smaller.

3. Don't let anyone tell you the trust fund is not real, that it consists of a bunch of worthless IOUs. The so-called IOUs are U.S. Treasury notes, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. And the Bush administration, which is borrowing heavily from the trust for Iraq (evidence that it's real money), won't dare renege on the debt.

4. Social Security is a uniquely progressive pension, in that the lower your income during your working years, the higher percentage of your salary is replaced by the benefit. Thus, as a retirement insurance system, Social Security deliberately favors America's workers, over higher salaried professionals and executives who can afford to save more and invest.

5. Social Security, which has paid out about $7 trillion through wars and recessions, is not just a pension system. A separate trust fund helps finance Social Security Disability Insurance for 7 million disabled Americans of all ages. And Social Security pays survivor benefits to 4 million children and 5.5 million widows/widowers of beneficiaries who died young.

6. Even if the president says he wants workers to be permitted to invest only part of their Social Security taxes in per- sonal retirement accounts, that would be a first step for his most prominent allies for privatization - Washington's Cato Institute and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, who would eventually replace all of Social Security because they believe the government should not be in the pension business.

Now let an honest debate begin.

[datasuspect]

6. hey, that's some good rw propaganda!

from the article you posted:

"And the Bush administration, which is borrowing heavily from the trust for Iraq (evidence that it's real money), won't dare renege on the debt." (???????????????)

do you share this same faith in our fearless leader?

[rog]

19. One sentence? How about the rest of the article?

datasuspect asked, re: "And the Bush administration, which is borrowing heavily from the trust for Iraq (evidence that it's real money), won't dare renege on the debt."

do you share this same faith in our fearless leader?

In answer to your question, I don't trust this administration as far as I can throw any of them.

That said, and the 23 words you cited aside, please explain to me ... in detail, if possible ... how the other 901 words in the article are "right wing propaganda."

Thanks in advance.

.rog.

[sangh0]

21. How is it "right wing propoganda"? Simple

The poster disagrees with it, so it "must be".

[datasuspect]

24. do much stalking?

you sure do have a lot of energy . . .

[sangh0]

26. You surely have a shortage of reasons

for saying that the piece was right-wing propoganda, and you're trying to hide that fact with your surplus of personal attacks.

[datasuspect]

27. you're making this too easy

i'll stop having fun at your expense. it isn't very charitable of me.

[sangh0]

29. So you still have no defense or reason

for saying it was "right wing propoganda"?

Do you ever have a defense for your beliefs?

[datasuspect]

30. sure i do

i guess now i have shadow.

thanks for the attention. i was beginning to feel invisible on this board.

[sangh0]

35. You just choose to keep it to yourself

How brave of you. Way to speak truth to power!!

[sendero]

7. If this is your idea of an honest screed.

.... I'd count my fingers if we ever shook hands.

Understand this: all the excess cash (surplus) being collected now is being SPENT now. Buying a bond from yourself is NOT saving money for the boomers. It is setting up an obligation to future wage earners to pay, nothing more.

If all that money actually existed, we'd be in OK shape. It doesn't, it is mere vapor.

[rog]

14. Courtesy of another poster, "ProfessorPlum"

Sendero ...

I'm not sure why this realistic view of social security is considered dishonest. Please give more details about your point of view. What we're talking about here is dishonesty from an administration that wants to dismantle every social program we have now.

Meanwhile, I thought this post was so great that it's worth reprinting here. I'm just now educating myself to this stuff ... perhaps it would be worth your while to do the same.

.rog.

Original thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2762542

Again, thank you ProfessorPlum ... this is one of the best posts I've seen at DU. You didn't get much response when you wrote this the first time. Perhaps you will now.

-----

Reverse Robin Hood Greenspan, and the Social Security Shell Game

Every time Greenspan opens his mouth you should hold on to your wallet. I note that he is starting to go on and on again about the need for Social Security reform. Remember this, whenever you hear it: Social Security reform now is a sham. It is the “2” in the 1-2 punch of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich that has been going on now for some decades, and is only possible because our press corps and national memory only go back about 2 years.

The reason this bit of theft is even possible is that in order to see it happen you have to be able to remember all the way back to the Reagan era. In those days, people were very worried about the strain that the approaching retirement of the Baby Boomers would cause on the Social Security system. (Remember the days when our leaders perceived problems and actually pretended to do something about them? Good times, good times.) The solution they came up with at the time was to massively increase the amount of wage taxes they would take out from working people’s paychecks to keep Social Security solvent, even through the retirement of the Baby Boom. People’s wage taxes went way up, and they sacrificed to preserve the safety net for older citizens, for themselves, and for future generations. Social Security is solvent and funded through 2044 because of those changes.

This little bit of history is never mentioned in the GOP- and Corporate Media-Officially Sanctioned Hagiography of Reagan because Reagan must always be associated with tax CUTS, ad infinitum nauseum, ad astra, amen. This move essentially solved the Social Security issue, at the cost of much sacrifice by the working class, and was also part of the widening gap between rich and poor that really built up steam during the Reagan era. At this point, massive new revenue streams from the working class are pouring into Washington’s coffers. This money is supposed to be used to fund Social Security, but it is spent immediately on current spending, as is all Social Security money. The wealthy begin thinking how nice it is to have all of that wage tax money coming into the government, and wouldn’t it be nice to have it fund more and more of the government? All that would be required is to get rid of Social Security. Then all that money could be used to pay for other government spending, and the rich could lobby for lower taxes for them. The con would be ruined, however, if people remembered that the money was for Social Security.

Fast forward to the Clinton years. Gore is campaigning for president in 2000, and he can hear the wealth and corporate class clamoring for tax cuts and he knows that most people have forgotten what was up with their wage taxes. After all, there hasn’t been talk about a Social Security crisis for years, and the government is flush with revenues. He endeavors to remind voters that the US now has the means to not only continue paying current Social Security, but to really put the money earmarked for Social Security aside to make sure we can pay for the Baby Boomers and their strain on SS. He talks about a lockbox, so that the extra money coming from their wage taxes can be put to the use it was originally intended for, keeping Social Security solvent until 2044. The whorporate press, in their glee at having something else besides GOP slander and calumny with which to mock and ridicule Gore, now use this phrase as part of the Atomic Media Wedgy they are applying to him. “Ha ha ha”, they laugh. “Gore said ‘lockbox’. What a loouooser.”

Fast forward to 2004. The money earmarked for Social Security is long gone, and then some. The working class is still paying higher taxes, and the money is being spent to buy tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, and to run the government. Even though people thought they were paying higher taxes in the 80’s to save Social Security, that goal has disappeared under a walnut shell. Once again, Alan Greenspan crawls out of the woodwork to start talking about the ‘impending crisis’ in Social Security, how everyone should expect to have their benefits cut (and also talks about how dangerous our deficit and debts are, see “Why You Shouldn’t Act Like an International A-Hole").

Now, Greenspan is no dummy. He remembers perfectly well that the much larger payroll tax that people are paying already saved Social Security until 2044, if our leaders would use other revenue sources for other expenses. Social Security will take care of itself. But “other revenue sources” includes taxes on wealth, and gee, wealthy people are tired of paying taxes. Wouldn’t it be better to just get rid of Social Security, lower the benefits, just kill it quietly in the corner, and continue to get those payroll taxes?

The only thing that could stop them from doing this is a media which is not lazy, ignorant, foolish, and in the pocket of corporations. In others words, we are screwed. And Greenspan, apparently, is happy to help.

[sendero]

18. The post...

... I was responding to comments about the great SS "trust fund". There is no freaking "trust fund", it is nothing more than treasury bonds. These bonds represent absolutely no real assets, they merely represent the government's promise to come up with the money. All the government can do to come up with the money is raise taxes or something similar.

PPs note is accurate. But most people really don't understand that there IS NO DAMN TRUST FUND. The TRUST FUND is nothing but paper.

If, when the times comes to dip into the "trust fund" there is no way for the government to raise the money, SS recipients will just be screwed. And I'm pretty sure that is what is going to happen.

I agree with every word ProfessorPlum says here.

[sangh0]

22. That's misleading

There is a trust fund, and bonds are a legitimate investment for a trust fund. A freind of mine has a trust fund filled with government bonds. Nothing wrong with that.

It would have been more accurate to say that the bonds in the SS trust fund are "unsecured"

The TRUST FUND is nothing but paper.

The trust fund is made of paper combined with the trust and confidence of investors in the US's ability to pay back those bonds.

Just like money. It's made of paper, and it's value comes not from gold or any other asset, but from the confidence of investors in the full faith and credit of the US.

[sendero]

32. Great circular logic...

... sorry, the "trust fund" is nothing more than our future ability to borrow. Given the debt and deficits, given the wholesale destruction of our economy, just exactly who do you think we are going to be able to borrow from?

The idea that treasury notes have some intrinsic value beyond what SOCIETY can cough up in the future is simply wrong. We are not going to be able to cough up anything.

[sangh0]

33. You could say the same thing about money

The dollar would be worthless if people thought we'd be unable to pay our debts.

The idea that treasury notes have some intrinsic value beyond what SOCIETY can cough up in the future is simply wrong.

Which is why I never said that. Debts, like money, gets it value from perceptions of creditworthiness.We are not going to be able to cough up anything

Demonstrably untrue. Every day, the US Treasury is paying back debts it incurred in the past.

[sendero]

37. In case you havven't noticed..

... the dollar is getting more worthless every week. This is a trend that is likely to continue, as once a country's debts become so high they cannot really pay them back, the printing of money and the ensuing inflation is almost inevitable.

Running 500 billion dollar deficits is only going to increase the debt, and decrease confidence in the dollar.

But again, trying to equate this with currency is absurd. What we are really talking about is what will the dollar be worth in 20-30 years, why, and will there be enough workers to continue with the "pay as you go approach".

There won't, so if you are under 35 or so I wouldn't count on getting jack from SS.

[sangh0]

38. At least that's a logical argument

Your concerns about our future ability to pay are more than justified. However, of you go and look back at how our debate began, you'll see that it began when I questioned your claim that there is no trust fund because it was composed of bonds.

The argument you present here, that we won't be able to pay it back, while possibly true, has no bearing on whether or not a fund can be composed of bonds. The point here being that the problem has nothing to do with there being no trust fund, or that the trust fund is composed of bonds - it's about whether or not we are financially solvent, an issue that depends more on our budgets, than on how SS is structured.

What we are really talking about is what will the dollar be worth in 20-30 years, why, and will there be enough workers to continue with the "pay as you go approach".

That is EXACTLY right. It's about if there will be enough workers, and the actuarial situation suggests that while there will be a period of concern, it's only for a relatively short term. Over the long-term, SS is very sound financially. The issue is getting past a time when there are more people leaving the workforce than entering it, a problem that corrects itself when even more people enter into the workforce.

IOW, the SS "hole" is only going to last for 10-20 years. After that, it's back to being fully funded. The 10-20 year hole can be "filled" by lifting the "FICA limit" on SS taxes, so there really is no good reason to believe the repukes when they talk about "no free lunch" or how SS is falling apart.

There won't, so if you are under 35 or so I wouldn't count on getting jack from SS.

That's what the repukes say. I choose to not believe them. Can you explain why removing the FICA limit won't make SS solvent?

[sendero]

41. Well...

... back to the original point.

Let's say I loan you money to be paid back at a later date. Instead of saving the money, you spend it and write yourself an IOU.

That is what is happening, and if you can't see that I can't help that.

[sangh0]

49. That's not an accurate description

Your arguments would be more credible if that reflected what was actually happening. Saying things like "there is no trust fund" when there is and "instead of saving the money, you spend it and write yourself an IOU" when that's not true, weakens your argument.

And saying things like "and if you can't see that I can't help that." is also pretty weak. We're all just voices on the Internet, and you are not any sort of authority on SS. You can make pronouncements about the superiority of your ideas, but implying others are less perceptive than doesn't add much. Explaining why you described something a certain way is a much stronger argument. This is particularly true given your previous inaccurate descriptions of SS's trust fund and it's inevitable insolvency.

And I noticed you said nothing about my idea concerning the elimination of the FICA limit. Actuarial studies show that this would completely restore the long-term solvency of SS for the next 75 years.

[BillZBubb]

36. You are being disingenuous, I hope.

Their is a trust fund. If I own shares in a government bond fund, I have assets in that trust. If the SS administration owns government bonds, they have REAL, VALUABLE FINANCIAL ASSETS.

Trying to claim government debt obligations are worthless is pure nonsense. It doesn't matter if they are held by the public or a government agency--they are valuable.

As for "there is no way for the government to raise the money" YOU CAN'T be serious! Dude, you don't have much understanding of finance if you really believe what you have posted.

[sangh0]

39. No, s/he's not

If you read through the discussion I've been having, s/he truly seems to think that there is no trust fund.

[sendero]

42. No, I'm quite serious.,..

As I said in a different post. Let's say I loaned you money that you were supposed to pay me back at a later time.

Instead of "saving" the money, you spend it all and write yourself an IOU. That is all the government is doing. They are spending the money with the claim that "the IOU is good we can always raise the money".

Bullshit. If they ever do "raise the money" it will be with inflated dollars worth much less than their par value because given the current economic situation and the projected number of workers vs. retirees there is NO FUCKING WAY THEY CAN RAISE THE MONEY.

[BillZBubb]

47. Sorry, but you don't have a clue about finance.

Our government has borrowed countless billions during wartime. That money was all spent. The lenders received IOU's (called bonds). The government said the IOU is good because we can always raise the money later. The government was right.

Consider this SIMPLE solution: The government needs to repay the Social Security trust fund bonds. It doesn't have the cash on hand. So, the government borrows the billions necessary. The lenders receive IOU's (called bonds). The government says the IOU is good because we can always raise the money later. The government will be right. They can essentially postpone paying the principal forever (or until the Social Security system is in surplus again) by issuing new series of bonds continuously. That's how our national debt is handled. Adding the SS debt will not be any different.

The problem isn't the Social Security system or the trust fund. The problem is Republican deficit spending. Learn to see the big picture.

[datasuspect]

9. bottom line

they WILL cut the benefit amount, they WILL raise the retirement age, they WILL seek to offset this with some form of "personal savings account" which really means investment account which really means equities/commodities/bond speculation.

did you not know that wall st. is the las vegas for rich people?

[madrchsod]

11. i`m not sure why everyone buys into

the SS fund is broke. from all the comments around here in the last few days it seems most people have bought the same old right wing bullshit that has been around since the 30`s. amazing how uninformed many are about SS and all it`s programs. what is really frighting from posters here at du is the creeping "generation war" that they advocate. i would suggest they decide to inform themselves in the reason for SS and it`s programs.
honest debate? i doubt that.

[tx_dem41]

16. The system is solvent until 2042.

We need to move it off-budget where it was always intended to be so people can understand that. I have been paying into the system for 25 years. I understand the system for what it is. An insurance plan, NOT a retirement plan. That said, whatever politician (or party) reduces my benefits by one iota will never get my vote again! There are many budgetary problems that we face....shoring up a program that is solvent for the next 38 years is NOT one of them.

[sangh0]

20. Did you read the article

The reason why SS is so endangered, according to Makiw, is due to the provisions that make SS benefits rise in proportion to the rise in wages. Since this provision benefited FUTURE retirees, and NOT "the greatest generation", I don't see how it could be called a ponzi scheme which benefitted the greatest generation.

[Ernesto]

3. Yes I noticed that cute little line also

No shit. There should be a sign that says "free lunches right this way............ That weekly deduction from your paycheck is just to cover shipping & handling"

[SoCalDem]

12. Watch for "free lunch" to join the ranks of

death tax
partial-birth abortion
junk science
junk lawsuits
"votes have been counted, re-counted, and counted again"
etc
etc

[tsuki]

13. Novak has a new tag line...free lunch.

[radwriter0555]

5. well you know, in GOP speak KIDS who get SS from their dead parents are

freeloaders and a drain on the system... apparently.

I imagine under the coming changes, only rich white males will be eligible to be paid SS.

[Historic NY]

10. W/o my mother's then father's SS & Vet benefits I wouldn't have made it.

Helped to support myself from 12-18 and put myself through college while working. My brother and myself had an Aunt & Uncle as guardians but pretty much those benefits put food on the table and cloths on our backs. It lifted the burden they would have had with us.

[unblock]

8. lies, all lies. it's not a "free lunch" nor is it a ponzi scheme.

in the VERY early days of social security, some of the earliest retirees got a nearly free lunch. some people contributed $10 yet got $1 per month for the rest of their lives. pretty sweet deal.

but generally, it's not remotely a free lunch because most people pay into the system for 40+ years before seeing a dime. calling it a "free lunch" is nothing more or less than a fraudulent smear.

it's also not a ponzi scheme because it doesn't require an ever-increasing pool of suckers or else eventually collapse. rather, it simply requires the continued practice of having current contributors pay for the current retirees. some adjustments will ALWAYS need to be made now and again to cater to predicted lifespans of retirees, predicted proportion of workers to retirees, and to reconcile reality against those predictions.

a large pool of retirees being supported by a small pool of workers will not be able to sustain the same levels contributions and benefits UNLESS it is properly planned and saved for, which is what the trust fund surplus is all about.

it should be noted, though, that the opinions that benefits must be cut should be taken with a very large grain of salt when coming from those who wish to destroy the program entirely. instead, we should pay more heed to those who believe in the program but are earnestly interesting in its long term success. long term success demands prudent levels of contributions and benefits, so those who believe in the program will try to set the levels properly.

[DemBones DemBones]

45. What's this? A voice of reason!

You know, it's actually funny when someone claims there is no way to save Social Security. After all, it's not as complicated as many other things human beings have managed to do.

Of course, many of those who don't believe it can be saved are of the sort who would evict a widow and her young children over a late payment, probably twirling their long mustachios and cackling all the while. Some people are all too eager to help others be victims of economic "natural selection, supporting social Darwinism while lobbying for creationism to be taught in public schools.

[Danmel]

15. Charitable Deduction

Well since I;'m paying in all this money and they government is saying I wont get any of it, can I take my SS deductions as Chartable deductions as well. They are after a gift.

[Deja Q]

17. It's funny, isn't it?

My grandparents got SS despite not having worked after SS started.

I've been paying into SS all my life and won't get anything back from it.

:shrug:

[sangh0]

23. My advice would be to doubt what the repukes say

It's the repukes who are saying that SS is going away. Dems say they're gonna keep it around.

So why believe the repukes?

[datasuspect]

25. because they control the executive, legislative, and judicial

branches of the government?

ya think that might have something to do with it?

because the current republican leadership in the house and senate think "bipartisanship" means providing a rubber stamp?

[sangh0]

28. So what?

as it stands today, SS is solvent for almost another 40 years, and the insolvency can be rectified with minor reforms. Unless you're predicting defeat on the issue (and given your non-existent defense for your arguments, I wouldn't be surprised if this is your position) SS is around for a long time.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SammyWinstonJack]

43. So why believe the repukes?

Do we have a choice? They have two years to get rid of SS, or greatly alter it. I don't think the Dems will be able to stop them, even if they wished too. They didn't stop the repukes from screwing with Medicare, did they? I don't have a lot of "faith" in the Dems these days and even less in the repukes. Sorry but that's where I am, or rather where I have been placed.

[MisterP]

40. Social Security "reform":

spending some billions to risk some trillions in the hopes of gaining some millions

[librechik]

44. Good Grief, those years of FICA taxes I paid won't even get me lunch?

What a Country!

[DemBones DemBones]

46. The GOP members of Congress surely know that

fucking around with Social Security is a sure way to lose elections. Most Congresspeeps want to stay in Congress too much to mess with SS. By 2006, everyone will have figured out that Bush**'s much-touted Medicare "reform" is a fraud and will be mad about that to begin with.

Republican voters talk a lot about responsibility and no free lunch for anybody, everybody do his share, etc., but a lot of them have elderly parents who'd be on the street -- or, more likely, living in their houses, taking a room away from their kids -- if it weren't for Social Security and Medicare. Anytime you hear someone complain about government entitlements, remind them of how their parents and/or grandparents have already benefited from government entitlements.

[raysr]

48. Free lunch

that SOB must be blowing Grover Norquist. Privatisation of SS explained by Bill Moyers(Ithink) of an "unending line of fatted cows in front of Wall Street". People die and have died never collecting a dime or never exhausting what they paid in. Pretty well thought out system for it's day. I am still pissed at Clinton for raising the age to 67 (for me).