The Media and Social Security.

[Eric J in MN]

The only news organizations I can name which have truly been crticial of Bush's Social Security scheme are "The New York Times," "The Minneapolis Star Tribune," and "Air America Radio."

Are there any others?

[Cha]

1. Sorry, I don't know but

it would seem that the "Social Security scheme" is going to affect soo many Americans that the truth better come out on what he plans to do to it..before it's too late. :grr:

[48pan]

2. We Have to Take the Lead

The only proposal that is getting any press is Bush's. Why aren't our Senators proposing the changes that need to be made? If nothing is done, Social Security is going to go broke or Bush is going to privatize it.

Hey Harry Reid! How about writing a decent bill for Social Security?

We can't win by simply voting no. We have to get out there and propose doing the right thing. We have better ideas. Let's use them!

[Strelnikov_]

3. I See No Problem With SS

It does not go into the red until 2048/55 depending on assumptions. And at that point could continue at 80% benefits.

Considering by 2048 we will be entering our 5th decade following peak oil, and that estimated worldwide oil production will be 43% of todays rate, I think reducing SS benefits by 20% to keep the system in the black will be the least of peoples worries.

In other words, if the retarded chimp is looking for a 'problem' to solve, maybe he should worry about future energy sources.

[48pan]

4. The Numbers I have been seeing...

Are far less optimistic. They put us in the red in 10 to 15 years. In any case, if we need a 20% cut, let's do it now. Letting problems go until they reach critical mass is never a good idea.

Personally, I can't see any way around this without raising the rate and the ceiling. The ceiling should be removed entirely, immediately. All income should be taxed for Social Security. Medicare rates should be raised to match the inflation in medical costs.

Another huge problem is the public perception. Ask any 20 something if they expect there to be any money around when they are eligible for Social Security and they will laugh at you.

Any way you look at it, doing nothing is a losing political proposition. Giving this issue to the Republicans is a gigantic mistake.

[Strelnikov_]

6. Getting The Message Out That There Is No Problem With SS

in the foreseeable future is not 'doing nothing'.

Throwing out a proposal to fix something that is not broken is probably worse than 'doing nothing'.

Every time the retarded chimp brays about the pending SS crises, the opposition should be pointing out there is no crises, and mention all of the other pending crises that should taking a higher priority, such as energy, the deficit, etc.

[48pan]

7. I don't post enough

to get into a flame war here, but I couldn't disagree more.

[Strelnikov_]

8. How Is Responding A Flame War, And What Do You Disagree With?

The SS crises is an invention to funnel SS contibutions into the stock market. Or could they be afraid of the effect on the budget deficit when SS outlays exceed income?

Here is a link to a report by the SS administration that indicates outlays will exceed revenues by 2018, with the trust fund running out by 2042. Therefore, this report indicates that SS is solvent until 2042.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/tr04.pdf

In a recent Paul Krugman editoral, he noted that a recent CBO report has this date as 2052 as follows:

"The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem."

"But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year."

[48pan]

11. I disagree that

1. There is no problem.
2. Continually whining that there is no problem will change public perceptions. The contrarian party will always be the minority party. You have to stand for something positive instead of simply saying, "I disagree," to every proposal from the majority party. We have become contrarians.

Our talking points have included saying, "Saving Social Security," in virtually every sentence for the last 10 years. Nobody believes us when we say there is no problem with Social Security. So let's make it better and take the issue back from the Republicans.

[BillZBubb]

15. You disagree, but you are still WRONG!

Go to the Social Security web site. Or read the CBO report.

Plus, it is positive to say SS is working and doesn't need Repug "saving". People don't believe their is no problem with SS because they are ignorant and have been fed Repug lies for too long.

We need to fight back for once--with the truth. Social Security is solvent until 2052, using conservative estimates. Slightly higher economic growth or growth in the labor pool moves it out even further.

[48pan]

16. I'm Talking Politics

And You are Talking Statistics and Forecasts.

The two are pretty much mutually exclusive.

The political reality is that we, the Democrats, have been repeating the words, "save Social Security," in every sentence for almost ten years. If we start saying that there's no problem with Social Security in every sentence now, nobody will believe us.

In fact, the result will be our loss of credibility on other issues as well.

So... Let's take this opportunity to solve future SS problems and grow our party.

[Cobalt Violet]

20. Save Social Securtiy from the Republican Hoax.

How's that.

[chomskysright]

10. ditto; here is letter I sent to Frist

Frist, TN, R; is the senate majority leader. He at least wrote me back on 12.2. re: these matters. here is the letter I sent to him and it takes into account the 'don't fuck with it and don't fuck with the money' notion:


Dr. Frist:

I am in receipt of your letter dated 12.2.04.

You stated that the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, established 3 different plans to reform SS.

The last update per your helpful link, www.csss.gov/reports is for July, 2002. Thus, very little has taken place, apparently, re: this matter.

However, as you know, the citizens of the US are VERY ANXIOUS about this matter and we do not want this privitized, including the AARP of which I am a member.

These are some simple, good suggestions re: the SS matter:

1) Raise the income caps.
2) Bring in more legal immigration
3) NEVER, NEVER, NEVER use Social Security funds for anything else.

I am sorry to say that we do not trust this administration. They lie, cheat, and have manipulated us as re: Iraq. The elections have been a fraud. Senator Conyers has had to fight tooth and nail re: moving matters along in OH.

Many of us are very incensed and we do not trust what is taking place in D.C.

Please keep us well posted on what is taking place as re: SS.

Sincerely,

[Strelnikov_]

12. I Would Readily Support Raising The Income Cap

From: Social Security: Crisis? What crisis?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/15/retirement/what_crisis/

"Payroll tax no longer captures as much income of wage earners as it did 20 years ago," Weisbrot said, noting that today 85 percent of payroll is subject to Social Security tax versus 90 percent in 1982."

"That's because more of national income goes to earners making more than the income cap for Social Security. Raising that cap "gets you a long way" toward taking care of the shortfall, he said."

[SharonAnn]

13. No, you're not right. We have a huge "bank" of saved Social Security

money. It's in U. S. federal government guaranteed note instruments, just like the T-bills that wealthy people buy.

We saved that money, the first generation in the U. S. to do so, starting at the time of the Reagan's "fix" for Social Security. He "convinced" us to pay extra (much more than was needed) to put that money aside for our future retirement so that the burden would not be so great on our children.

Now some say that it's a false savings because it's money the taxpayer has to repay, but that's not true. When foreign companies buy our debt, when wealthy people buy our debt, and when Social Security buys our debt, it's an Asset to them and Liability to the U.S. Government. It has to be paid back when it's due.

After all, you wouldn't consider shortchanging working people of the United States in favor of the wealthy people and foreigners, would you?

Oh, and I don't take the perceptions of 20-something year olds as my evaluation of macro or micro-economics. They're not yet informed enough to know much.

[Strelnikov_]

19. I Think You Have Hit On The True 'Crises' As The Iron Heel Sees It

That is, in 2018 they will have to start paying back the money 'our' retirement insurance plan has invested in the national debt.

And as we all know, the last thing the Oligarchs want to do is pay what us Lucky Ducky's are owed. Their entire motivation is continued transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the Oligarchy.

[Telly Savalas]

17. I believe even the numbers Bush cites...

say we'll be about $3.75 trillion in the red over the next 75 years. Even if these numbers are true, Social Security is still far from being our nation's biggest fiscal concern.

It's been projected that during the eight years of Bush's presidency, we'll be seeing nearly an identical figure in defecit spending. So if we're supposed to have a fit over the insolvency of Social Security, then why aren't we panicking over the insolvency of our government on the whole? Acting like Chicken Little over Social Security, while saying "no big deal" to the much more dire issue of our budget defecits and national debt is insanity.

I agree that giving this issue to the Republicans is a mistake. Instead of buying into Bush's lies, the Democrats need to create an alternative dialogue on the issue which looks at the entire fiscal picture.

[BillZBubb]

14. You are wrong.

You've already bought the propaganda line that SS is in some immediate danger. It isn't.

[Sara Beverley]

5. The media don't have to live off Social Security. They will never tell

the truth about what Bush is doing to this country. There is no hope for America.

[chomskysright]

9. AARP also

[Telly Savalas]

18. Damn straight.

And this is precisely why we shouldn't give up hope on the issue. The GOP would be making huge advances in the field of idiocy if they were to piss off the AARP.