Ignore the Fear-Mongering on Social Security

FOCUS: Apocalypse Fairly Soon

FOCUS: Five Facts That Put America to Shame

The NDAA's Coup d'Etat Foiled

FOCUS: The Commencement Address That Won't Be Given

A Victory for All of Us

Intro: "Today's Social Security critics use many of the same false arguments of those who tried to stop it 75 years ago. In fact, with only minor adjustments, the popular program will easily remain solvent."

Franklin D. Roosevelt delivers a "Fireside Chat", 06/15/35. (photo: Cabrillo College)

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+4 # Guest 2010-08-16 06:26

Thank you. Honest articles about Social Security are too rare.

I would add that Social Security has NOTHING to do with the deficits. And it never will. It is funded by the workers themselves.

The so called deficit in Social Security's own financing is caused by the expected increase in life expectancy. Workers will not want to work longer even if they live longer. They can pay for their own longer retirements with a tax increase that amounts to twenty cents per week each year, while incomes are going up ten dollars per week per year. There is no need to raise the cap or otherwise turn Social Security into "welfare." SS is YOU paying for YOUR OWN retirement.

-3 # Guest 2010-08-16 07:18

Yes, the Clinton era of Enron was a challenging one for all of us opposed to excessive greed and fraud, and the as Dean Baker said, the financial leadership of the late 90's was the "worst since Herbert Hoover," however1:

Pres. Bush did not propose to "privatise SS," he proposed that younger workers could, on a voluntary basis, invest up to 1/3rd of their contribution (not the employers) into conservatively managed investment acct's.

Bush's proposal was widely supported by the people, especially young people. FactCheck.Org (left-leaning org), in 2008, blasted Obama/Biden for trying to "scare seniors" in lying to them about what had been considered by Bush.

+4 # Guest 2010-08-16 08:14

Younger working people are raised in a particular economic environment that wasn't seen 30 to 50 years ago. They also can rarely see the future with themselves in it as a 65 year old. They also place too much trust in investing, and it was in the Bush plan for them to invest in the limited choices the government gave them. That wasn't considered by those who supported that SS plan. Who, ultimately, would benefit from those investments. Bushes cronies, of course.

0 # Guest 2010-08-16 10:09

Bushes cronies? That includes the late Sen. Patrick Moynihan, D.?, a big supporter of what Bush proposed. Bill Clinton also was not dead set against the idea.

Once again, it was not just the younger workers who supported the idea; these were typical of most national polls:

ABC/Washington Post Poll Finds 56% Of Americans Support "Plan In Which People Who Chose To Could Invest Some Of Their Social Security Contributions In The Stock Market." (ABC/Washington Post Poll, 1,001 Adults Nationwide...)

68% Of Adults Aged 18 To 29 Support Allowing Workers To Invest Some Of Their Social Security Contributions, As Well As 60% Of Those Aged 40 To 49 And Even A Majority (53%) Of Workers Near Retirement (Ages 50 To 64).

(I'm not too sure I'm on board with it, by the way - just feel that when the majority of Americans support an idea, then it should be openly debated - not smeared by the national media, etc.)

+4 # Guest 2010-08-17 05:26

Like I said, forparity, Bushes cronies. The wealthy do stick together whether democrat or republican or independent.

There was discussion daily for a while, but folks began to catch on to the limitations of the invitation to make those changes in SS. Folks I work with argued over it and the younger ones ranted. Some of the younger ones wanted to get rid of social security altogether. Too much misinformation, of course, but older, wiser people realized how little control over the money they would actually have. Good that the proposal died.

+7 # Guest 2010-08-16 12:23

If you're looking at bad financial management, how 'bout the prolonged push by conservatives for deregulation, starting with Reagan and continuing through to its logical conclusion, the collapse of the housing market. These retro reforms were spearheaded by people such as Gingrich, DeLay, Gramm, etc., and aided by the Friedman apostles at the Fed. Enron is indeed a special case, Ken Lay was close to GW, Gramm, whose wife was on the Enron board, rammed through the energy deregulations that enabled Enron to game CA to the tune of 12 billion or so. While Clinton was no friend of the common man, the deregulation and "free" market policies that led to the present economic collapse can be laid squarely at the door of conservative Republicans. Those who might have invested some of their SS money in the stock market would have lost their shirts, BTW.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

rsn

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Confirm password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.