Social Security Is Not In Crisis

Vance

New Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,265
Reaction score
1
After the inauguration, Bush is scheduled to push for tort reform first, then attack Social Security. His entitlements offensive relies on the White House's ability to make Americans think Social Security is in crisis. Dean Baker says it's not. But don't just take his word for it. The Social Security Trustees say the same thing.

Dean Baker is economist and co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, DC.

In the wake of his election victory , President Bush said that cutting Social Security will be at the top of his second-term agenda. He supports a proposal from his Social Security commission that hits workers with large cuts in their Social Security benefits. The proposed cuts are phased in over time, but an average wage earner who is 20 today will see their total Social Security benefits cut by close to $160,000 over their retirement. They will have the option of trying to retrieve a small portion of these cuts by seeking higher returns in the stock market, with the additional risk this implies.

Virtually everyone agrees that Social Security is a great system. It provides tens of millions of workers with a guaranteed, core retirement income. It also provides disability insurance to people during their working years. In addition, it provides survivors’ insurance to the children of workers who die at an early age.

It is also extremely efficient. The administrative costs of Social Security are just 0.6 cents of every dollar that gets paid out in benefits. By contrast, the administrative costs of systems of private accounts, like the one in England, eat up 15 cents of every dollar in benefits. Social Security also has a minimal amount of fraud and abuse, as numerous government audits have repeatedly documented.

Why would anyone want to change a system that works so well? The main reason is that President Bush and the financial industry have managed to convince people that Social Security is on the edge of bankruptcy. Millions of younger workers, and even many older workers, now believe that they will never see their Social Security checks.

Of course, President Bush has never felt constrained by the truth. Some may recall the fact that the administration concealed its estimates of the cost of its Medicare prescription drug plan as Congress narrowly approved the measure. Immediately afterwards, the administration told the public that the actual cost of the benefit would be more than $100 billion higher than the projections in front of Congress at the time of the vote. The administration’s conduct of foreign policy also provides some basis for questioning the truthfulness of its public statements.

For these reasons, it would be better to rely on the actual numbers than accept President Bush’s claims about Social Security. The official numbers tell a very different story. The Social Security trustees' report shows that the program can pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2042, with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2042, the program would always be able to pay a higher benefit (in today’s dollars) than what retirees currently receive, although less than the full scheduled benefit.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office did an independent investigation of Social Security’s finances and came up with an even brighter picture. They found that it could pay all benefits through the year 2052 with no changes whatsoever. Furthermore, according to both sets of projections, the changes required to keep the program solvent through its entire 75-year planning period are smaller than the changes made in any of the decades from the 1950s to the 1980s.

If people knew the truth about Social Security’s finances, there would be no support for President Bush’s benefit cuts and privatization plan—and that is why proponents of privatization have worked hard to spread fear about Social Security’s financial health. But remember, there is no more reason to trust these folks on Social Security than their talk about Iraq. Look at the numbers and reach your own conclusion.

Source: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/social_security_is_not_in_crisis.php


That's what I thought so. Boy, GOP loves to spread the lies.

I am going to post the next comments that provided to me by conservative... I almost had a heart attack when this conservative told me that she/he support the Social Security. His/her exact words: "Why the hell should I support the president who lies to his own people?"

Bravo.
 
Last edited:
Here's 6 conservative reasons not to follow Bush's radical neo-con plan.

1. If Social Security is in trouble (and the disinterested experts, that is, those not funded by people interested in cashing in on the plan say that it is not), it is because the government has been taking all monies out of it beyond what is needed for benefits in the current year. This "borrowing" has been added to the national debt, itself mostly created by the radical policies of Reagan and the two Bushes. Bush II wants you to think that if Social Security is privatized, we (meaning we the people) won't have to pay back this debt to Social Security, however

2. The privatization plan won't apply to nor will it cover current recipients of Social Security. So Bush wants to borrow another $2 trillion to institute this plan, on top of all the money that has been "borrowed" already.

3. The government will have to expand and create a vast new bureaucracy to manage the 300,000,000 individual accounts. These radicals in power now claim certain traditional conservative values. Two of them are smaller government and the idea that government is inefficient. The Bush plan flies in the face of both of these.

4. The stock market is risky. Period. The money pouring in from the Bush plan will a) fuel a new stock bubble and b) will be speculative. I know that the Bush is trying to sell the idea that the people will be trading from their private accounts. Wrong, for two reasons. First, what they will be doing is choosing one of a small number of funds in which they can participate. (But which funds? Who gets the nod for the guaranteed megabucks from Uncle Sam). Second, unlike real traders and investors, people "investing" in this scam will be unable to withdraw their money if the market changes.

5. Some promoters of this scam like to say that the average returns on the stock market taken over years out performed bonds, blah blah blah. Yes. Does it follow that people don't lose huge amounts of money in stocks? We have recovered from stock market crashes, but if you reach retirement age when a crash or even a bear market happens, you yourself could lose your money, even if the rest of us who aren't retiring can stay in and recover. The average rate of growth argument is like the average longevity argument. On average, people live until their late '70's. But lots of people die younger. Care to gamble your social security on it?

6. Another thing that real investors can do is diversifying into foreign equities and bonds. I have seen nothing in the Bush scheme that says that a US fund will be able to do this. There are two things about this. First, foreign investment by a government-controlled fund will be susceptible to political issues. If Germany or Japan does something we don't like, do you really think that the government is going to allow the Social Security system to invest billions there? Second, do we want to help other countries by sending our money to support their economies? The point is this. If there is no free investment, there is no free market.

This privatization scheme is a scam. What it is really meant to do is to divert monies that we are supposedly putting aside to cover our retirement risks into stock speculation. You don't see Bush proposing that all government monies now in bank accounts or bonds be flushed into the stock market to garner speculative returns do you?

The real Social Security problem is the current level of the national debt. The interest on the national debt takes 20 percent of our tax dollars now. If these radicals that have stolen the Republican Party since 1980 had not been borrowing money for their useless imperial schemes, we would not be talking about a "Social Security crisis" today.

--------------------------------------------------


I am Magatsu and I approved this messages.
 
Well, without reading much on this subject, all I know is that there are fewer workers supporting the SS system than ever before so....where's the money coming from?
 
If al gore was the president you know what he do about Social Security ? Raise taxes and im not in favor of raising taxes.
 
Neither am I, dude. But the first thing Bush did was to raid the Social Security fund and give it away to the richest of the rich.
 
hmmm what is that? is someone talking? Oh right! I put you on ignore! :lol:
 
Back
Top