On Social Security
Dec. 23rd, 2004 01:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weaktwosWhat are your thoughts, folks?
Robert Scheer
December 21, 2004
Just my luck: I finally get to be a senior citizen only to discover that the president considers my longevity a grave threat to the nation. Apparently, my collecting Social Security checks for as long as I have left on this Earth is going to help bankrupt the economy and/or be an unbearable burden on young Americans.
That's why, after seven decades of unmitigated success in protecting seniors from the vagaries of market forces, the White House now wants to turn Social Security itself over to the vagaries of market forces. The conservative mantra, whether it comes to energy policy, war in Iraq or education, is to siphon public money into the private sector whenever and wherever possible, through such gimmicks as agribusiness subsidies, school vouchers and the hiring of private mercenaries.
Greed perfectly meshes with ideology in the Republican Party, and the attempted sabotage of Social Security is just another example. While the followers of Milton Friedman talk about the free market in religious terms, Wall Street is slavering at the possibility of one of the biggest potential windfalls in human history if the Social Security spigot is turned its way. The attendant investment fees alone would be enormous — certainly higher than the minimal 1% overhead costs the current Social Security system consumes.
What's astonishing is that despite the recent spate of abrupt corporate bankruptcies and Wall Street corruption scandals, the president would have us believe only stockbrokers can save Social Security, and the stability of the entire fund would be tied to a stock market that has been known to tank now and again. Further, even the president's key advisors admit that the short-run cost of "privatizing" Social Security would add trillions of dollars to the Bush legacy of federal government red ink.
While I am all for expanding opportunities to invest in tax- deferred retirement accounts (like 401k's), it does not follow that Social Security should be exposed to the same risks. Social Security is the safety net for the elderly that has since its inception protected millions from facing abject poverty upon retirement — even if their pensions should evaporate, as they did for the employees of Enron.
Along with Medicare, Social Security is the key reason seniors are no longer the most impoverished class in our society or a crushing burden on their children. This last needs to be mentioned to counter the argument that ensuring the security of baby boom seniors would impose an intolerable burden on younger workers. For who is going to replace those Social Security checks, should they stop coming because Grandpa picked the wrong stock? The kids and grandkids, that's who, if they have any real family values.
I speak out of an experience I'm sure many of you share. My mother retired after 40 years as a garment worker, after which she lived with me until she died at the thankfully old age of 88. Her presence was of great emotional value to our family, but because of her two-decade bout with Parkinson's, it would have represented a serious financial burden on my wife and me had it not been for government support.
The president says the system that has served us well in the past is no longer sustainable. He, or rather those cooking the books for him, attempts to scare us with projections that the Social Security trust fund will begin to run deficits 38 years from now.
But those numbers assume no dramatic change in the increasing ability of seniors to retire later and otherwise continue to earn income that is taxable. The anti-Social Security crowd is trying to make this a young-versus-old generational fight, even though seniors still pay taxes like anybody else. We even pay taxes on most of our Social Security earnings, if our household income rises above a pittance.
If the president is truly worried about the federal coffers running dry he should stop cutting taxes for us better-off folk and stop spending so much money on boondoggles like the occupation of Iraq. However, if it turns out that we need additional taxes to cover the obligations of the Social Security trust fund four decades from now, so be it. After all, money distributed to the elderly through Social Security is poured right back into the economy.
For three-quarters of a century, Social Security has guaranteed us all a life of modest dignity as we live out the end of this mortal coil.
So — if you'll pardon this senior's use of a curmudgeonly truism — I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The GOP's Sabotage of Social Security
Robert Scheer
December 21, 2004
Just my luck: I finally get to be a senior citizen only to discover that the president considers my longevity a grave threat to the nation. Apparently, my collecting Social Security checks for as long as I have left on this Earth is going to help bankrupt the economy and/or be an unbearable burden on young Americans.
That's why, after seven decades of unmitigated success in protecting seniors from the vagaries of market forces, the White House now wants to turn Social Security itself over to the vagaries of market forces. The conservative mantra, whether it comes to energy policy, war in Iraq or education, is to siphon public money into the private sector whenever and wherever possible, through such gimmicks as agribusiness subsidies, school vouchers and the hiring of private mercenaries.
Greed perfectly meshes with ideology in the Republican Party, and the attempted sabotage of Social Security is just another example. While the followers of Milton Friedman talk about the free market in religious terms, Wall Street is slavering at the possibility of one of the biggest potential windfalls in human history if the Social Security spigot is turned its way. The attendant investment fees alone would be enormous — certainly higher than the minimal 1% overhead costs the current Social Security system consumes.
What's astonishing is that despite the recent spate of abrupt corporate bankruptcies and Wall Street corruption scandals, the president would have us believe only stockbrokers can save Social Security, and the stability of the entire fund would be tied to a stock market that has been known to tank now and again. Further, even the president's key advisors admit that the short-run cost of "privatizing" Social Security would add trillions of dollars to the Bush legacy of federal government red ink.
While I am all for expanding opportunities to invest in tax- deferred retirement accounts (like 401k's), it does not follow that Social Security should be exposed to the same risks. Social Security is the safety net for the elderly that has since its inception protected millions from facing abject poverty upon retirement — even if their pensions should evaporate, as they did for the employees of Enron.
Along with Medicare, Social Security is the key reason seniors are no longer the most impoverished class in our society or a crushing burden on their children. This last needs to be mentioned to counter the argument that ensuring the security of baby boom seniors would impose an intolerable burden on younger workers. For who is going to replace those Social Security checks, should they stop coming because Grandpa picked the wrong stock? The kids and grandkids, that's who, if they have any real family values.
I speak out of an experience I'm sure many of you share. My mother retired after 40 years as a garment worker, after which she lived with me until she died at the thankfully old age of 88. Her presence was of great emotional value to our family, but because of her two-decade bout with Parkinson's, it would have represented a serious financial burden on my wife and me had it not been for government support.
The president says the system that has served us well in the past is no longer sustainable. He, or rather those cooking the books for him, attempts to scare us with projections that the Social Security trust fund will begin to run deficits 38 years from now.
But those numbers assume no dramatic change in the increasing ability of seniors to retire later and otherwise continue to earn income that is taxable. The anti-Social Security crowd is trying to make this a young-versus-old generational fight, even though seniors still pay taxes like anybody else. We even pay taxes on most of our Social Security earnings, if our household income rises above a pittance.
If the president is truly worried about the federal coffers running dry he should stop cutting taxes for us better-off folk and stop spending so much money on boondoggles like the occupation of Iraq. However, if it turns out that we need additional taxes to cover the obligations of the Social Security trust fund four decades from now, so be it. After all, money distributed to the elderly through Social Security is poured right back into the economy.
For three-quarters of a century, Social Security has guaranteed us all a life of modest dignity as we live out the end of this mortal coil.
So — if you'll pardon this senior's use of a curmudgeonly truism — I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-29 07:00 pm (UTC)Now to slightly break off and debate with you a little bit since you can't let go, i'll say this. I'm sure if it is privatized people will lose money. but the world is not a safe place. the goverment shouldn't have to protect you, you are owed nothing. if you have to think and control you're own life and investments well, boo hoo. if you don't like that 1) don't invest in anything beyond a money market 2) don't take the option to control your investment (assuming one is given) and let the gov't keep doing it, 3) stop living. but for me, i'd rather have that win or lose, i never whine that the gov't should take care of me, old or young.
That's all i claim to offer, not facts about who will win or lose and how much, i don't really care. I offered my opinion on the current state of things, and whether i thought it would be better or not. i think controlling your own destiny is a good thing, i'm not too scared i'll fuck it up to the point where i'd rather let the gov't control it (more). I don't need to post articles to make those 2 points, i don't claim to be the expert on social security, and frankly, just because you read and post other people's opinions doesn't make you one either.
But you told me i was emotional and made no sense, perhaps cause i didn't write an article or include a ton of other people's facts and opinions. what more can i say to that, it's not a fear of arguing, it's just pointless. This isn't school or the debate team, it's not my job to go out and find ways to refute you, i'm not a lawyer getitng paid to argue a side. i'm not on a side, i'm just offering what i feel about it and what i think, nothing more. It's my opinion, so it's neither right nor wrong and can not be disputed by facts. If you don't get that and just keep throwing articles at me, well, just let it go. if youw ant, then you can win or be right or whatever, frankly i don't care.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-30 07:42 am (UTC)If the fact that more people pay into social security than receive the benefit is the main standard that makes social security similar enough to a pyramid scheme, then investing in the stock market is as much or moreso like a pyramid scheme.
As for your opinion, it can be disputed by facts. Why have an opinion on an issue that is debatable if you don't have facts to support it? What is the point of having an opinion and arguing it if you do not want to seek some sort of higher knowledge? Why would you want to continue believing and asserting that social security is a pyramid scheme when it is not?
And no, this isn't school, or the debate team, but then school was supposed to teach you these things because they have a value in this society. And while I do not expect you to write an article, I think you should have some support for your opinions. Especially since conventional wisdom helps to resolve disputes. No, it's not your job to find ways to refute me, but it is your job to be an informed individual in this world, for otherwise, you do more harm than good on this earth.
But if all you care about is your opinion, and not really learning more, or understanding more, then so be it.
As for the world not being a safe place, sure, that's true. But the purpose of a society and a government is for protection: the notion of safety in numbers. The idea that we work together to create a better environment for us all. Many of us pay into the government so that we do receive such protection. Citizenship does and should have its privileges. What do you think the purpose of the government is? Without society, Hobbes said, life is nasty, brutish, and short. If the government owes you nothing, why bother paying taxes at all? Mind you, the government does not owe you everything, but if the society as a whole does not go to some lengths to help those less fortunate in our society, they become even more of a problem then if you helped them in the first place.
Government is not nice, neat, and clean. All people do not behave perfectly, or have all the skills an abilities to be the model citizens we all require. Then again, those at the higher end of the spectrum benefit from being more intelligent or better off than the poorer folks, for if everyone were equally gifted, it would be harder for them to acquire more of the resources of this planet for their pleasure.