Now they will start on Social Security, a project of Heritage Foundation.

[madfloridian]

http://www.fair.org/extra/9905/ss-ttm.html
SNIP..."And yet experts from the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute have repeatedly and falsely claimed that Social Security is bankrupt--and the media have let them get away with it. For example, in an executive summary of a June 1998 report entitled "Social Security's $20 Trillion Shortfall," the Heritage Foundation author, Daniel J. Mitchell, flatly claimed "the Social Security system is bankrupt." When Mitchell repeated that lie on Good Morning America the following month (7/26/98), the ABC reporter interrupted him--not to correct him, but to indirectly support his views by pointing out that 84 percent of participants in a survey on ABC's website favored some sort of privatization.

Of course, ABC is not the only network that fails to challenge the misinformation of these think tanks. In January 1998 on CNN's Newsday and again in December 1998 on CNN's Your Money, the anchors claimed that "Social Security starts having cash-flow problems just 14 years from now." According to actuaries at Social Security, at the end of 2015, which is 17 years after that broadcast, Social Security will have assets of almost $2 trillion. I'd like to have cash flow problems like that!...."

http://www.fair.org/extra/9703/generation.html
SNIP...."The media have been duped by a clever campaign whose intention is to get rid of those nasty Social Security programs. Perhaps the idea of "generational warfare" was too good a story to question. Whatever the reason, the media have turned an ideological assertion into conventional wisdom—and in the process have distorted the political voice of an entire generation..

Marketing Generational Conflict

The story of "generational conflict" begins with a handful of strategists and their organizations, the media sources for the myth of Generation X. The first of these was Americans for Generational Equity, or AGE, an organization that demonstrates that with proper funding, it's possible to launch an unsubstantiated idea and see it turn into the standard media view.

AGE had three adept founders and leaders: executive director Paul Hewitt, who continues to direct campaigns to privatize Social Security from his base at the right-wing National Taxpayers Union; research director Philip Longman, who recently published an anti-entitlement tome called The Return of Thrift; and Sen. Dave Durenberger (R.-Minn.), who later pled guilty to theft of public funds....."END SNIP

The Medicare drug plan is a result of well-planned attacks, and now the same groups are going after Social Security.

This compilation of articles by FAIR is quite eye-opening. They are using the media against us, just as they did for Medicare.

I have already seen a post this morning at DU with support for privatizing Social Security. It has already begun, it started years ago with a compliant media on board.

More Social Security facts:
http://www.retiredamericans.org/issues/issues_ss.htm

They are already starting, and I see it happening at DU.

[blm]

1. The Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute are running this country now.

They are twin evils set to roll back everything advanced by Democrats in the last 50 years.

Thanks to all those Democrats who supported their positions over the last 20 years. You SCREWED over the nation and the Democratic party with your compliance.

[Lars39]

2. A kick!

in the @ss to the people here at DU who are so shortsighted as to think we don't need a safey like SS. This is a progressive site, for gods' sake. Why are folks jumping on the rw bandwagon? Do these folks not have any elderly relatives or friends or imagination? :mad:

[JanMichael]

3. I'm at a loss for words when it comes to anti-SS, Medicare...

..."Progressives" and "Liberals".

Mind boggling really.

You know what I think? I bet half of them are "Trickle On" economics fans too.

[Lars39]

8. And listen to Rush daily, "just to hear what the enemy's up to!" Righht.

Hell in a handbasket....

[mmonk]

4. Cato was against the Medicare Drug Bill

[madfloridian]

6. I think they opposed it for very conservative reasons.

I saw a spokesman from CATO one day who was against the bill, but ONLY because it did not go far enough toward turning it over to private companies. I don't think they had the same reasons for opposing it that I did.

That is why some Republicans opposed it, it did not go far enough for them.

[mmonk]

7. and

they realize it means larger tax payer subsidies for Hospitals. They opposed the energy bill because it was a taxpayer boondoggle as well.

[papau]

5. I reviewed the Cato estimate and agree with it - if you want a funded

rather than inter-generational funding - system.

By the way the Heritage Foundation author, Daniel J. Mitchell - is a liar.

The Cato estimate was of a need for 9 to 10 Trillion of non-government bond assets to put SS on a fully funded traditional defined benefit pension plan basis - not $20 trillion - and $10 trillion is about correct. But folks forget that in the early 40's fully funding Social Security was what the Democratic Party was going to do, but the GOP screamed that such large assets under the control of the government was "SOCIALISM BY THE BACK DOOR" and prevented such funding.

Under inter-generational funding - the GOP way - when Clinton left office SS was funded forever at current tax rates and Reagan's retirement age change of 67. Now under Bush economics, the actuaries say it is solid to 2043, but in 2044 the retirement age for "normal" or full benefits will need to be raised to 70 (meaning "early retirement at 62" in 2044 will get you less than today's early retirement at 62.

The screaming for private accounts is a way to mask the benefit cut that Bush wants NOW. And the reason he wants it now - not in 2043 - is that the actuaries assume those government bonds that Bush gives the Social Security system in return for the payroll tax surplus (tax in excess of that years benefit payments) that he uses to finance the tax cut for the rich - that those bond will begin to be redeemed beginning in 2017 for SS. And Redeeming those bonds means a need for cash which in turn means a tax increase under FIT on the rich so that they pay back the payroll tax that Bush stole and gave them. Of course Bush could borrow even more from the private capital markets to get the cash to pay those bonds off - but that would increase interest rates by increasing the demand for money - and that would screw the economy even more.

And Bush is not about the rich paying back anything - nor is he about corporate welfare cuts, or about tax increases on the rich.

[madfloridian]

9. I especially like this Myth and Realities page on SS

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/socialsecurity/myths/

Click the numbers to see the issues.

[papau]

10. Excellent Link - It is what I'd write if I could write better! :-)

I like UNIONS!

:-)

[madfloridian]

11. I notice a lot of "ponzi scheme" threads. Wonder why?

:shrug: