Its not about money, its about priorities
A lot of young people have bought into this idea that Social Security "won't be there for them." (Okay, just about everyone has.)
But this is complete fiction. We are being misled by people who just don't want to prioritize our needs.
First of all, the way that Social Security works: current workers pay in to the fund, which goes to current retirees. So the only way there "won't be any money" for you when its your turn is if there is nobody working. Obviously that is never going to happen. There will always be people paying into the system. Therefore there will always be money there to pay your benefits.
But wait, you might say, I heard that there's going to be so many boomers that they'll swamp the system. Or I heard that there are too few workers to support all those retirees. Or I heard that Congress steals the money. Yada yada yada.
Well, according to the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget office, based on the current contribution, Social Security is about 75%-80% funded for our entire lifetimes and 100% funded for the next 40-50 years.
That's not a system that is bankrupt, like some taco stand going out of business. Social Security is not some ATM that's going to stop spitting out cash just when you get to the front of the line. It doesn't work that way.
The challenge in front of us is, how do we get from 75-80% up to 100%? Because that's the goal: 100% for everyone. Keep the guarantee. And of course that takes money.
Is there enough money? Of course there is---its just a question of priorities.
Today, the priorities for Congress are 1. Tax cuts and 2. Military spending. That's where the money is going.
Let's take tax cuts first. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the recently passed Bush tax cut costs nearly than 3 times as much money as is needed to pay 100% of Social Security benefits for 75 years.
On the second point, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, sustaining current U.S. defense policies would require much more taxpayer money than fulling paying Social Security benefits.
Now, you can be for the tax cuts or against them, for U.S. defense policies or against them. That's not the point.
The point is, if anyone says "there's not enough money to pay Social Security," or "Social Security is running out of money," what is really going on is that they want to spend the money on something else.
See, there is enough money in Washington to pay your Social Security benefits. Its a matter of priorities.
Would you favor raising the contribution rate in order to get to 100%? Or using some of the money from the general budget that is presently going to other priorities? Or doing something else? There's no shortage of options. Check out http://www.nasi.org for more information on what you could do get to 100%.
But whatever you do, don't get played by believing you'll get nothing out of the system....because people who think they have nothing to lose will fall for anything.
Rock the Vote: Political Power for Young People.
But this is complete fiction. We are being misled by people who just don't want to prioritize our needs.
First of all, the way that Social Security works: current workers pay in to the fund, which goes to current retirees. So the only way there "won't be any money" for you when its your turn is if there is nobody working. Obviously that is never going to happen. There will always be people paying into the system. Therefore there will always be money there to pay your benefits.
But wait, you might say, I heard that there's going to be so many boomers that they'll swamp the system. Or I heard that there are too few workers to support all those retirees. Or I heard that Congress steals the money. Yada yada yada.
Well, according to the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget office, based on the current contribution, Social Security is about 75%-80% funded for our entire lifetimes and 100% funded for the next 40-50 years.
That's not a system that is bankrupt, like some taco stand going out of business. Social Security is not some ATM that's going to stop spitting out cash just when you get to the front of the line. It doesn't work that way.
The challenge in front of us is, how do we get from 75-80% up to 100%? Because that's the goal: 100% for everyone. Keep the guarantee. And of course that takes money.
Is there enough money? Of course there is---its just a question of priorities.
Today, the priorities for Congress are 1. Tax cuts and 2. Military spending. That's where the money is going.
Let's take tax cuts first. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the recently passed Bush tax cut costs nearly than 3 times as much money as is needed to pay 100% of Social Security benefits for 75 years.
On the second point, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, sustaining current U.S. defense policies would require much more taxpayer money than fulling paying Social Security benefits.
Now, you can be for the tax cuts or against them, for U.S. defense policies or against them. That's not the point.
The point is, if anyone says "there's not enough money to pay Social Security," or "Social Security is running out of money," what is really going on is that they want to spend the money on something else.
See, there is enough money in Washington to pay your Social Security benefits. Its a matter of priorities.
Would you favor raising the contribution rate in order to get to 100%? Or using some of the money from the general budget that is presently going to other priorities? Or doing something else? There's no shortage of options. Check out http://www.nasi.org for more information on what you could do get to 100%.
But whatever you do, don't get played by believing you'll get nothing out of the system....because people who think they have nothing to lose will fall for anything.
Rock the Vote: Political Power for Young People.
posted by Hans Riemer at 2:34 PM
46 Comments:
Thanks for the information. It was helpful and further proves to me that we should be looking at all options for strengthening SS.
sorry but i want to be able to control my own money
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper for Social Security to pay for mandated euthanasia at old age, say, 50? I don't want those old people to steal my take-home pay.
I might feel compelled to send money to my grandparents if I knew that they need support. I'd hope my grandkids would do the same for me if I'm missfortunate enough to allow myself to get into that situation to begin with.
The government needs to stop stealing from me to give to the old. It's like a perverted Robin Hood. (btw, Robin Hood stole money from people that got rich from stealing from the poor not from random rich people)
We need to act policy that will progress us towards more just policies:
Electronic ballots of tommorrow:
Each voter is required to select the voting issues that they care the most about. Let's say top 3 for starters. The voter makes his/her selections. Before the voter can submit the vote for being processed he/she must correctly answer multiple choice questions about their canidates stance on the issues they selected before. If they fail, they are deemed incompentent to vote for that canidate. I'd like it if lights and sirens went off as an extra public humiliation type punishment, but I think the not allowing that person to cast a vote for the canidate is good enough. Age Discrimination should be a crime not part of law. Toss the voting age requirements too.
Yeah, that's a good idea; but with that guy's punction, grammar, and spelling problems maybe he should be deemed incompetent to post on blog.
And you?
punction
incompetent to post on blog
You don't have a plate in your head, do you?
Well the punction thing thing was a mistake. I can explain it though. It's simple I was just -- Hey, look over there! Is that a Canadian clubbing a seal that I see?
Your idea of reduce military spending for pay for Social Security is completely backwards. The role of the federal goverment is to protect its citizens not to fund the retirement of it's citizens.
This whole system of current workers paying for current retirees is by default the wrong way to do it. Why not pay for your own retirement?
Next, Social Security is not a guarantee. Politicians can change any aspect of the plan and you have no say about it. They can change the age you get your grandchilds money and they can change the amount you get back.
The whole thing is wrong. I wish individuals can opt out of the plan all together. The government can even keep the money I've given them already.
Thank you for this informative blog. I once to was a victim to believing the government’s aspect on SS. I considered the private accounts to be a much better plan, since you have the chance of making an increase. However, it wasn't until reading this blog that the simple fact dawned in my head that, there will always people paying into SS.
The whole thing needs to be voluntary. That way some of us that actually pay attention to our retirement funds and want that responsibility can get a better return than the lazy people that just want the gov't to take care of all their needs.
Why do the Amish get to opt out of Social Security while I don't?
Well, according to the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget office, based on the current contribution, Social Security is about 75%-80% funded for our entire lifetimes and 100% funded for the next 40-50 years.
Wrong. Social Security begins running deficits in 2017 according to the Social Security Administration. The only ways to make up those deficits are to raise taxes, cut spending in other government programs, or reduce benefits. Besides, why should be happy with only 75-80% of my money back from this forced "investment"?
Let's take tax cuts first. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the recently passed Bush tax cut costs nearly than 3 times as much money as is needed to pay 100% of Social Security benefits for 75 years.
That's not how the Social Security system works. The extra money would still wind up in the general fund because the only thing that can happen to surplus SS funds is they are given to the Treasury to be spent and still must be paid back under current law from tax funds. This changes nothing about the date which Social Security goes broke or starts running a deficit.
On the second point, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, sustaining current U.S. defense policies would require much more taxpayer money than fulling paying Social Security benefits.
Given that the proper role of government is defense, I can't say I have a problem with military spending per se. However, we can and do need to debate what our defense priorities are as a nation. However, our troops and our national security do not need to be held hostage by socialists like yourself who want to redistribute wealth away from young people and give it to the old.
The point is, if anyone says "there's not enough money to pay Social Security," or "Social Security is running out of money," what is really going on is that they want to spend the money on something else.
And you're not using the Social Security issue as a means to push your agenda on tax cuts and the war??? Pot meet kettle.
We live in a society. We can't just think of ourselves. There is nothing we can do that doesn't ultimately affect another person in someway (talk to your philosophy professors). Opting out of social security in order to privately invest funds for retirement is ignorant of our connection to society. Let's not forget that social security doesn't just go to old people. It pays into support for children whose parents have passed away, it pays into the lives of disabled members of our community. If you're only looking our for #1, you're doing damage to somebody somewhere. MORE POWER TO THE PROGRAM!
I'm still waiting to hear a response from RTV concerning the allegation that they're opposing SS reform because AARP is funneling them money. Come on RTV, speak up.
We live in a society.
It takes a village.... -- Hi(t)lary
Geezus
"We live in a society." where people seem to think its okay to steal from people to further their own causes.
Stealing is always wrong. "What if a mother steals some food so she can feed her baby?" Well guess what, the stealing is still wrong. I for one think it nobel for the mother to sacrifice her morals for her child's survival; but guess what, the stealing part was still wrong.
i think i can handle my own retirement investments - government involvement is NOT the answer
hmmm, I can stay in the current program, pay my 12.4% in taxes and get 75% of my benefits when I retire or I can support a plan that allows me the opportunity to make up the difference and more. I wonder why I support personal accounts and joined an organization I learned about from another thread, Generations Together, www.generationstogether.net. If you want change, you have to do something about it not just complain about it.
This is for the stealing to feed a baby moron. If stealing to feed a baby is noble, the stealing part is NOT wrong.
Let's talk some more about stealing. You claim that the government is stealing money from you, and that is immoral. What about ignoring the underpriveledged in our society? Is that not wrong?
The right wing conservatives usually tend to be the ones fighting against social security, so let's take a look at some conservative Christian values. A Samaritan once came across a man badly beaten and robbed. Previous to his arrival two others had passed him by. The samaritan took the beaten man, helped him, payed for his room in an inn and told the inn keeper to continue taking care of the man. What ever he spent more than the Samaritan gave, he would be reimbursed in full the next time the Samaritan came through town. FDR was just trying to be a good Christian by not passing by those in need. How can we call ourselves moral if we're only keeping an eye out for our own damn selves?
One more thing. If you don't like social security because you disagree with the nature of the program (being forced to pay into the fund), don't try to discredit the program. Explain why you think the principle of the current social security program is wrong morally. Don't go looking for faults in the program when that's not really why you disagree with it. State your point and support it.
Dear god, please tell me someone at RTV has read the Constitution and understands that the TWO aspects of the federal government is to provide NAtional Defense and regulate interstate commerce, and within those powers include the levy or taxes, which by the way means to confiscate property from Americans to pay for those two functions. Taxes are not to be viewed as government money which means your political bias towards tax-cuts hold no water in this discussion. The government does not give tax cuts, they allow people to keep more money they EARNED. As for military spending, I believe its spelled out there in the Constitution as to the importance of the federal government raising an army for national defense.
So now that you can take the first two "priorities" on your list and make them a Constitutional REQUIREMENT, what's left that the politicians have been spending SS money on for all these years? How about frivolous pork laden programs that amount to nothing more than vote buying schemes that allow them to go back home and say "look what I did for our community, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame will get another 100,000 dollars this year of tax payers money!"
SS does not have a trust fund, SS is nothing more than a stack of IOUs that have been written by politicians for decades. Back then it was a great way to pay for programs without raising "taxes", just take the SS surplus and leave the system with IOUs that we'll just pay back later... well later is coming a lot sooner than people want to believe. The money IS NOT there, and just as was pointed out before you conveniently left out the SSA's own stats on when the system will begin running a deficit. not to mention that you somehow believe that politicians will never raise the SS tax, lower benefits and raise the retirement age (which, BTW< they have the full authority to do any time they want to put the idea to a vote). There is no guarantee with SS as long as the system can be hijacked by politicians through a simple majority vote and stoke of a pen.
As for the math regarding the workers and contributions, you're dead wrong if you think that when the typical Gen X or Gen Y citizen reaches retirement age we will reap 100% of the benefits from SS. If you simply do the math of the number of retirees currently living + the number of boomers getting ready to retire + the increased life expectancy of Americans - (the number of X/Y workers in the marketplace + the number of babies our generation is having) you come up way short of being able to support any SS system. In order to retain SS at its current benefit level by the time most of us reach 65 (assuming congress hasn't raised the retirement age to 70 by then) the average worker will need to fork over anywhere from 35-50% of their paycheck... what a great system!
Forget SS, start giving us information on viable options, because SS is broken, its a dead horse. The only guarantee that ANY of our generation will ever see a retirement check is to start saving what you can now in your own savings account and investment account.
Yes, RTV has truly made fools of themselves here:
"First of all, the way that Social Security works: current workers pay in to the fund, which goes to current retirees. So the only way there "won't be any money" for you when its your turn is if there is nobody working. Obviously that is never going to happen. There will always be people paying into the system. Therefore there will always be money there to pay your benefits."
That has to be the most childish, propagandish piece of work about SS that I have seen in years. SS is an economic and philosophical issue, not a bedtime story.
I guess RTV's stated purpose is to empower youth through voting, but what really seems to be happening is a mass stupification of anyone who buys into your blog. Get a life! And stop instigating hate toward people who just want to keep more of the money they earn.
"What about ignoring the underpriveledged in our society? Is that not wrong?" Well since the impoverished have a shorter life expectancy than everyone else, they generally have less time to collect. Once they kick off, all that money vanishes like a fart in the wind. If that money was in private accounts then the several hundred thousand they accumulated would go directly to their families rather than some Washington fat cats campaign fund. Those who these programs are supposed to "empower" are actually the ones that are hurt the most.
My sentiments exactly. Amen Todd.
That guy did a good job at completely neglecting the difference between helping someone yourself and forcing others to help against their will. I bet he's the type that stops moving traffic to let some car enter into the road from a parking lot. Sure he helps the guy in the parking lot, but he completely disregards those behind him that he's inconvienced without permission. That seems to be the theme of these socialists who like to call themselves Democrats.
What's up with that anyway? Why is it that the Democratic Party has nothing to do with supporting the ideals of Democracy? Next thing you know people will be calling "libral policies" "progressive policies" just to mess with everyone's heads.
Right on Todd!
I don't remember the part of the story where the Samaratan threatened the Inn Keeper to take the guy in or else he would be robbed, imprisoned, and subjected to anal rape.
Really though. What else would you call forcably taking something that doesn't belong to you? FDR might as well be pointing a gun to my head or having Bubba stand behind me with his unit out threatining to shoot me or shag me if I don't give em their money. Wait there is another name for this? Isn't this what the gangs use to do. They would ask each business owner for protection money. If they didn't pay then bad stuff would happen to them. Thats called extortion (sp).
Why haven't I seen a rebuttle to the argument that SS was made illegal before it was passed due to Ponzi schemes being made illegal prior?
Think about this. It's 2005 and Social Security doesn't exist. Your president and congress get on TV and tell you they have a great idea to help retirees.
The plan is called Social Security. Simply, the government will ask that every young worker take a portion of their pay, lets say 12%, and redirect it to the government to distribute to the retirees when they reach 65, 66, or 67, take your pick because it can change whenever congress decides. Soon, there will be 2 workers to support each retiree, but it is our duty to support these retirees. Lets say the retiree needs $1500 a month to live on. That is $750 dollars a month from each worker. Do you think anyone in their right mind would vote for this today. Does this at all sound like the best way to handle retirees? It may have sounded good when the tax was 2% and there were 15 workers per retiree and the assumption was that the number of workers would only increase.
People, this is crazy. You wouldn't buy it today if this were laid out in front of you. Who cares if it worked in the pass. It's not going to work in the future. Simple as that.
Wow! Brilliant point, Responsible American.
Responsible American, I wonder what you and others think about the "Electronic ballots of tommorrow" mentioned in one of the previous comments.
The government needs to do something to look after the elderly and less fortunate. No one is saying that it shouldn't. What they are saying is that SS is broken and will not continue to provide enough benefits in the near future. It is not a liberal, conservative or a religious issue. It is purely a mathmatical problem. In a few years it will be 2 workers for every one retiree. Are you going to be comfortable with paying $400-$600 per month into SS?
Private accounts are an option. It is an opt-in program. The goal is not to get rid of SS the goal is to create a program that works and will continue to provide benefits. I cannot understand why everyone is not for looking at SS and seeing what can be done to make it better and more stable. Unfortunately the AARP and RTV seem more concerned with playing political games than actually addressing the problems.
I found this on another site but it seems very relevant to this conversation.
FDR’s original plan seems very close to what Bush is proposing today. His program was to have three components: an old-age welfare program (designed primarily for the elderly of the pre-Social Security era), a compulsory contributory retirement savings program, and a voluntary savings program which would generate supplemental income. Here’s the relevant text from his message to Congress of January 17, 1935(http://209.208.234.42/archives/speeches/jan1735.cfm):
In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.
SS was never meant to function in the state it is currently in. I wish they would have implemented FDR’s plans a long time ago. Maybe then I wouldn’t be looking at SS as a money pit that I will never see any return from.
"The government needs to do something to look after the elderly and less fortunate. No one is saying that it shouldn't." Are you calling me no one? I'm saying that it shouldn't! This is not the role of the government. This is the role of charities.
Defense, Public Schools, Public Roads - these are socialists programs.
Welfare and Social Security - these are communist programs.
I can tolerate some social programs, but back in the day didn't we kill commies?
Is the purpose of RTV to rail against every single republican stance, or to agnostically engage young people in the voting process? Most people under 30 do not care about SS. No one is ever going to wear a ridiculous SS t-shirt. By trying to champion this issue, RTV is marginalizing themselves into an 'anti' group -- anti-rightwing, or anti-conservative, or anti-bush -- instead of taking a truly catholic approach to bringing the youth into the political process.
Don't you people have any morals or did you grow up believing that the Twix commercial slogan of "two for me, none for you" should be applied to all aspects of life? Social Security and Medicare ended elderly poverty. Period. People can now live out their last days in dignity no matter how little or how much money they made. Now people don't have to work until they drop dead. But obviously you heartless, selfish people don't care about other people's lives. Instead you view life as some grand game of Hungry Hungry Hippos where you eat all that you can. He who grabs the most wins. That's not what America is all about. And by the way there wouldn't be a Social Security "crisis" (there is no crisis) if we had spent the surplus accumulated by Clinton on preserving Social Security for many, many, many generations as Gore would have done. Instead we got tax cuts that didn't stimulate the economy but lined the pockets of the wealthy who hide their money in the Cayman Islands and don't even pay taxes. Hans, where did these trolls come from anyways? Did you guys come over here from Powerline? Oh and by the way, you've already lost the debate, Americans care about each other and they care about their future. Remember that word from 2000. What was it? Oh yeah, COMPASSION! There was some famous guy who talked about that too. Can't remember his name, only that it started with a "J".
Dear Fronter,
I received an e-mail you sent me entitled “We can’t rock Sh*t without you”. Since the e-mail did not allow for a direct reply, I am placing my response on your blog.
I originally signed up for Rock the vote because your e-mail said you were a non-partisan voter registration group. However, after the election, you sent out an e-mail expressing your disappointment at Bush's victory and encouraged everyone to continue fighting him. Your e-mail said you “give [us] the facts strait, with no agenda”, yet your website contains specific policy positions on education, jobs, debt, health care, war, the draft, and free expression.
You have a right to political loyalties, but to pose as an unbiased friend of college students while pushing a political agenda makes you a two faced pawn of the elite. Do you really think that students are stupid enough to believe you personally care about them when you block all e-mail replies to your announcements? Do you think they are foolish enough to fall for the slick advertising that thinly veils your inconsistent statements?
I have no interest donating to a Sh*t head like you.
To the miss informed goon who wrote, "Social Security and Medicare ended elderly poverty. Period."
Are you kidding yourself? All SS did is insure poverty to those who rely on SS. Talk to anyone who is on SS, and they will tell you, "THEY ARE POOR!!!" It sounds like you care about these people. How can you not want a better system for them when they retire? I would suggest you care less for their future than someone who wants change the system and make it better. Don't get confused about my or anyones else's intentions. Just because I don't want the government to run the corrupt and failing system of SS, doesn't mean I don't care for the retirement of elders, myself, and my recently born daughter.
To your other ridiculous point: "People can now live out their last days in dignity no matter how little or how much money they made."
I guess you're not talking about Male African Americans because their life expectancy is already lower than when benefits start paying out. They don't get squat. And soon enough, the age will be raised again and more people will be eliminated from ever receiving benefits. This really sounds like living in dignity.
And to your other government school educated point: "And by the way there wouldn't be a Social Security "crisis" (there is no crisis) if we had spent the surplus accumulated by Clinton on preserving Social Security for many, many, many generations as Gore would have done."
You probably believe that a surplus means that there was actually billions of dollars of taxpayers money sitting in a banking account ready to be spent by the government. WRONG!! It's a projection over ten years. If everything stays the same (no more democrat giveaways added to the budget or any other vote buying scam) then there will be billions of dollars left over to spend 10 years down the road. Let's not forget since Bill left office, he left a recession behind, we were attacked by terrorists, we are now actively spending money to kick terrorists asses all over the world, we added dept of homeland security, your trustworthy politicians added spending to more domestic programs, on and on and on... By the way, the gov't should never be running a surplus. This means the gov't is taking too much of our hard earned money and unless they give it back in some form of tax relief, you can bet your life politicians will find something else to spend it on. Like funding a broken SS system where two workers will be responsible for the retirement of one retiree.
I understand your first liberal thought is that no one should ever have to suffer, no matter how many bad decisions they have made in their life, but the reality of life is that there are no guarantees and people do suffer consequences for their actions. At least under privatization, the people you care about most will own something that grows with them. They can see how money can work for them and maybe inspire them to learn more and educate themselves. At the very least, they will own an asset that is transferrable to their children, who can take that money and maybe elevate themselves out of poverty. Oh yeah, the best part is that it will be voluntary. If you want to stay 100% in the old broken system, go for it. We can compare our decisions when we retire and your working in a toll booth somewhere when your 70 trying to earn supplemental income and I'm at a resort enjoying my retirement playing golf.
Put your emotions aside and do some research. You might find that your compassion is being limited by your emotions and lack of knowledge.
Later
There's just one thing to think about: Will we have a Guaranteed retirement benefit? Will our parents have a Guaranteed benefit? It all comes down to that basic idea: A guaranteed benefit for all of us. Social Security is the foundation of our financial security. It isn't how we make a million, it is the foundation of our security. Win or lose, we have a check coming to us that will keep us out of poverty when we can no longer work. I know I, for one, am living check to check. I'd love to save a bit, but it's damned hard. I don't make much, and I'm not even paying rent, because I save by living with my parents. How could someone like me, or like you, afford retirement? I hope I can make it even yet, that I can provide for myself and those to come, but if my bets go wrong, thank heaven I have a 100% secure income foundation - Social Security. It will never fail me, and I will always know that it will cover my basics. The rest is up to me. I, and millions more, need a basic retirement foundation. Social Security is it.
Get yor financials straight. I know that a lot of us young people don't have a lot to invest, so we don't know the basics, but here is a super simple primer for you: DIVERSIFY. That means that not all of your income is subject to the same risk. Social Secuurity is not all we have to live on for our retirement. It is the solid, insured, low-risk part of our portfolio. We must use our wits to rise above that level with the remainder of our money. But, witless or lucky, we will Never live in abject poverty because Social Security will be there for us. That's what the current debate is about. Do we want to ensure that no one lives in poverty after they can no longer work? Do we want to ensure that children whose mother or foather have been crippled or killed stay out of abject poverty? This is not about creating the most lucrative system for You; it is about Keeping the most solid system for Everyone.
Man, this Anonymous poster rocks.
"here's just one thing to think about: Will we have a Guaranteed retirement benefit? Will our parents have a Guaranteed benefit? It all comes down to that basic idea: A guaranteed benefit for all of us. Social Security is the foundation of our financial security. It isn't how we make a million, it is the foundation of our security. Win or lose, we have a check coming to us that will keep us out of poverty when we can no longer work."
Rarely do you see the core ideas of Social Security articulated so directly.
I couldn't agree more.
The fundamental question we are dealing with is, how much of a guarantee should we have?
Those of us who believe in Social Security say that America needs a baseline, a safeguard, something that provides a floor you can't fall through. And its not a welfare level benefit---its something that can keep the middle class secure while lifting up the poor.
That gaurantee should be about what it is today---Social Security---not less.
Private investing is good. Its necessary. But Social Security is different and it must survive!
Viva Social Security!
We Love Social Security!
There are no safeguards. There are no fail-safes. What you are looking for in SS doesn't exist. SS could fail sooner, or it could fail later. You are presenting an illusion.
The government is attempting to manage my money for me. Why? Is that the role of government? Maybe I want to help the elderly, or the poor - maybe not. However, it should be my choice.
Also, why is RTV taking a partisan stance? Is the purpose of RTV to get young people to vote, or to push specific agendas?
The fail-safe is the U.S. economy. The fail-safe is a promise issued by the U.S. government that it has never yet failed to fulfill. If the U.S. government stops meeting its Social Security promises, it will be because the whole country has already gone down the hole. Your dollar bills won't even be worth anything.
Your post reminds me that the Social Security debate really is about whether we want a program that reduces poverty. Maybe you don't want to end poverty for anyone but yourself. I do, and that's why I Love Social Security.
You are free to try to end poverty in the best way you see fit, for as many folks as you can, with your own money, but who gives you the right to use other people's money? Perhaps, others feel that simply throwing money at a problem never solves anything.
Perhaps, there are better ways to use the 12% that gets taken out of every paycheck, than having a bureaucratic robin hood take from the 'rich' and distribute to the 'poor'.
Rock the Vote shows unparalleled political partisanship here, and it's doing nothing more than hurting our generation. Why is Rock the Vote selling us out like this?
I'm sure that the writers for Rock the Vote are well informed, and know full well that they're using sources that are deliberately biased to the left. Both sources cited in this blog article use sources that are very clearly against Social Security reform on political grounds.
If you're going to use biased sources, please point out the bias. Many people in our generation do not have the time to do this research themselves, and they're being misled by Rock the Vote's blind partisanship.
It is very true that Social Security is 100% funded for the next 40 years or so- if you take into account the Social Security trust fund bonds, which are NOT paid for currently. Paying for these bonds will require government revenue, which requires either tax increases, deficit increases, or benefit cuts for Social Security.
This is why personal retirement accounts are so important. By raising the rate of return, the system will have to pay out less money, thus not demanding so much money from the trust fund. Rock the Vote is passing a deliberate partisan myth that stands to increase taxes substantially for our generation- all so they can receive the same amount of benefits that people receive now.
That, my friends, is not fair. Rock the Vote, you have sold us out, and it is incredible that you people actually engage in this blindly partisan stance.
To those of you who say "Social Security should be a guaranteed safety net for all Americans" as your argument against reform:
What's the point of having that safety net, if you have to pay substantially higher taxes throughout your lifetime just to get the same benefit that people get now for substantially less taxes?
Rock the Vote is promoting a scam. A flat out scam that threatens to screw over our entire generation. Under reform, there still would be a guaranteed benefit, everything would be entirely voluntary, and YOU would decide- FOR YOURSELF- whether you want to try to increase your benefit by investing in stocks or not.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Rock the Vote is trying to play on our generation's stupidity and ignorance, all because it wants to promote the same partisan politics that the AARP does.
Well, thank you for that informative speech on exactly how important it is that us silly youth stop believing everything we hear.
Oh, gee, I'm so golly grateful that you've warned me of the evil dangers those dirty Republicans support. It seems to me that this entire speech is about as valid as anyone saying that welfare only helps crackheads and prostitutes. (What with three-fourths of it going to those lazy, horrible kids out there.)
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/04/rock_the_votes.html
Rock the knowledge, THEN the vote.
Hi Hans,
I was at Marla Ruzicka's memorial service here in San Francisco Monday nite. It was so wonderful. Hundreds of her friends, family members, political colleagues, were there to say Goodbye to this magical, progressive, caring, young woman who gave so much to all of us in such a short time she was with us. Thankfully her work in Afganistan and Iraq will live on through the organization she founded.
Rick Hauptman
Post a Comment
<< Home