Bush will not need a Social Security check....

[kentuck]

and neither will his Republican cohorts in the Senate. So, with the effort of swatting a fly, they announce that they will raise the retirement age and cut the benefits because we cannot afford it...Actually, they are planting the rumor to see how it flies but this is obviously the backup plan for the failed Bush "privatization" plan.

They have given away the store with their huge taxcuts and the monstrous deficits from spending on the wars and defense projects and the SS surplus no longer can cover their maniacal spending. So what do they do? They suggest we cut SS benefits and raise the retirement age. When, in fact, the SS receipts are the largest in government that are now running in surplus. We would be in a helluva bind if not for the SS trust fund.

So, this is the Republican plan. Everyone can see it in black and white. They are going to put the screws to working America when they retire. It's back to the days of serfdom. Welcome to Republican America.

[Vickers]

1. Yeah, but with all the high fructose corn syrup and GMed food

nobody is gonna live to see a nickel of it anyway.

WOO HOO!

[Spectral]

2. Don't forget the cigarettes

:donut:

[MsTryska]

3. "We would be in a helluva bind if not for the SS trust fund."

do you mean that if it weren't for the SS Trust Fund - the deficit would be a lot higher than it is now?

or something else?

[kentuck]

4. Yes....sorry I did not clarify...

in the context of the deficit, we would be in a bind fi not for the SS surplus,

[MsTryska]

5. heh.....

what SS surplus? ;-)

[kentuck]

6. The amount extra that is left over after all benefits are paid out....

There is a surplus but it is spent.

[MsTryska]

7. i know...that's what i was getting at.....

it isn't even making it to "surplus" T-Bond status anymore, i don't think.


the bastards.

[kentuck]

8. Without the "surplus", we could add another $750 billion....

to the Bush deficits. That 3/4th of a trillion dollars! And he says we can't afford to pay SS retirees in the future. Hell, we can't afford to pay anybody in the future...

[MsTryska]

10. *lmao*

i know.

you know i was talkign to some libertarian leaning free amrketeer type the other day about the deficit.


he said to me - unfortunately there's no hope for the deficit until China stops pegging the yuan to the dollar.


1. he's picked up the latest talking points.

2. If china doesn't peg to the dollar - it will most likely peg to the euro. and the euro is still higher than the dollar. So it would increase the deficit by almost 25% i think. that's a lot of billions.

[kentuck]

9. delete

dupe post...

[the_spectator]

11. The Social Security system today is incredibly regressive.

Think about it. People are only FICA'd (taxed for Social Security) up to the first $90,000 of annual income. You earn any more, you pay NO more.

Then, once a person reaches the age that they start receiving Social Security checks, they get those checks whether they need them or not. G.H.W. Bush gets Social Security, for example. Plus, don't forget, all those rich people who don't need it will actually receive, (I believe) the MAXIMUM amount payable, as the amount of Social Security payments back to you in your old age is based on the size of your income over your working life (viz the income history / expected benefits mailers we all get from the SSA).

Plus, of course, we take in so much money FICA'ing basically the working and middle classes that yes, there is currently a Social Security "surplus" which is then spent by the government on other things, thus meaning that the still-relatively progressive income tax system has to provide less money than it would otherwise.

To me, THIS is the real "crisis" of Social Security.

What would be the best, simplest and fairest solution? Scrap FICA, collect the money through income taxes, and simply make payments to retirees and others a regular part of the government's budget. Why don't we do that? Well one argument I hear from politicians and pundits is that by doing that, it would make SS a "welfare program" and eventually the public would no longer support it: ESSENTIALLY saying that average Americans will only be willing to see their government pay an old-age pension to retirees if it is run as a sham
"insurance" policy system which benefits the rich, rather than a straightforward payments-to-those-in-need system, because people would hate the idea that poor people are being helped! Give the people some credit! I don't buy that.

[kentuck]

13. It's not about "investment"...

It's about providing an insurance, a safety net, for those that are not so lucky, but you may be correct about it being "means tested"..

[Spectral]

12. That's the problem with this bunch--they are elites

They never had to go to war and they never had to sweat for a paycheck and a minimal retirement.

[kentuck]

14. Just like Dean said...

:)