Nah, somebody else mentioned it online somewhere a few weeks back. Just passing the good stuff forward.
The OP:
What you call a ‘nonsensical proposition’ is exactly the sort of interpretation I said didn’t make sense. So we agree on that. Proceed.
Sorry, RT, but this falls under the “Too Ridiculous to Refute” heading.
Trying to claim that saying “Social Security is running out of money” violates the Constitution is well beyond a stretch and on into tin-foil hat territory.
Although it is heartening to see that this is the best the Left can come up with to add to the debate about Social Security. If it is, Bush and the Republicans will win the argument by default.
Regards,
Shodan
Let’s go back to the President. “government will somehow have to come up with…”
Maybe that’s to obscure. Let’s magnify: “have to”
Is that still too difficult for you?
Have to.
This is stupid, even by your standards. Whatever blog you read that fed you this garbage, abandon it.
Here’s the letter I’m sending my Congressional delegates on the topic – not that it’ll do any good, they’re all rich, white Republicans (and male, if you’re counting):
Just a note to let you know that as a person who would like to retire eventually, I stand absolutely OPPOSED to ANY plan to privatize Social Security. Nobody let me play around with my retirement money when I was starting my career, I don’t want to let anyone else do the same. I have NO faith in privatized accounts, or whatever Karl Rove wants to call the current effort to gut Social Security.
Please don’t give me any responses about the Social Security system going bankrupt in a couple of decades. I know that’s BS, and it would hurt me to think that you thought so little of my intelligence as to try it on me. A generic thank you letter would go over better – and it’s what I’ll get anyway.
This issue has a direct and personal effect on me and my retirement plans. I have worked many years at jobs where I put a lot of money into Social Security in the hopes that it will be there when I need it, and I WILL take it personally if my chances for a halfway comfortable retirement are frittered away in this manner. There are a lot of other ways of dealing with the Social Security issue, as you well know. Please don’t vote for this one, it will make it very hard for me to support you on any other issue.
Oh man, somebody’s buckin’ for a keelhaulin’.
Yet your OP contained:
So, which is it: nonsensical or impeachable?
Polycarp, you didn’t pay into Social Security for 38 years to pay for your own social security payments today (or tomorrow, I don’t know how close to retirement you are). You paid into social security for 38 years to pay for all the people who were getting social security THEN.
Then you throw a fit when someone suggests changing the system, because you believed the lie that somehow you were saving for your own retirement by paying your social security tax. Your payments and my payments fund my Grandmother’s social security payments today. They don’t fund your social security payments tomorrow, or my social security payments tomorrow.
If we “owe” you a particular level of payments, and to cut your payments or reorganize your payments is “stealing” from you, what about your grandchildren who will be paying most of their paychecks in taxes to support your payments? Who’s going to pay them back? Nobody. You don’t care, as long as you get your payments today.
The reality is that current workers have to support current retirees. And tomorrow’s workers have to support tomorrow’s retirees. Just like yesterday’s workers really supported yesterday’s retirees. To complain about how we’re stealing YOUR MONEY is ludicrous, and beneath you. The amount of money available to support you in your retirement depends on how much money the government can generate (through taxes) to support you, not on how much money you had to spend in the past to support other retirees.
Let me put it in simple language:
“Shall not be questioned,” is a legal term of art. It does not mean that no government official can discuss their validity. It means that no law may invalidate them.
I strongly disagree with your assessment of the thrust behind Polycarp’s post. I see no mention of a savings account there.
Social Security is an enduring social contract, that we tacitly agree to be a part of by working in America. The only way for the government to defend the removal of Social Security taxes from your paycheck in order to distribute the money to today’s seniors is to guarantee that the the system will still be there to take care of you in similar fashion when you stop working.
Now, here’s good ol’ W, saying, “Gee, I just can’t my head around the idea of charging taxes from the populace to pay for the incredible layouts I plan for government. Let’s pretend that the Social Security program really is a retirement account, and privatize the managing of it. Let’s put less money into the SS system. Polycarp, you know all that money you put in over 38 years, so that we could provide yesterday’s seniors with a certain level of income? We’re going to show our gratitude for those years of service to our government by guaranteeing that you have a greatly reduced expectation from the system you gave so much of your income to, cuz’ I jez’ can’t stand the thought of paying for government expenditures through taxes.”
If that isn’t retroactive theft, I don’t know what is.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Polycarp, you didn’t pay into Social Security for 38 years to pay for your own social security payments today (or tomorrow, I don’t know how close to retirement you are). You paid into social security for 38 years to pay for all the people who were getting social security THEN.
If thats true then how is it possible that there is a surplus?
The treasury notes the SS fund is invested in are. The statement that the SS fund will head into the red(payments exceed revenues) in 2018 is based on the assumption that those treasury notes will not be repaid. If you strip SS of it’s nest egg(the T-notes) by defaulting on the massive amount of government debt it owns and make it live paycheck to paycheck, then yes it will go into the red in 2018(as it did in 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983).
Defaulting on those T-bill securities would violate the 14th amendment. Therefore, unless we intend to amend the constitution to get around it, we are constitutionally bound to honor those assets of the trust fund. Therefore the SS fund will have the money it needs in 2018 and beyond.
Enjoy,
Steven
As a 30 something working in the US, I can’t agree with this statement. I’ve pretty much expected, since about day 2 of my working career, that Social Security would NOT be there when my turn comes to retire. In talking to my similarly aged friends, this is the common view. Social Security is an enduring social contract that will help support our parents and grandparents, but may pay for an occasional dinner out when we retire. We are all paying SS as well as stuffing as many dollars as possible into and IRA or 401k account. We are in reality planning on paying for the baby boomers and ourselves to retire.
In general, I’m a tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, lower-left-side-of-the-bell-curve liberal. But I can see the silliness of claiming that a system that in 2042 will only be able to pay out about 70% doesn’t need to be fixed.
Because Polycarp, myself, and millions of others are making payments into SS which total more than the payments SS is making to those who currently draw benefits. The tax dollars which are left over from our SS payroll taxes after current benefits are paid become a surplus. This surplus is, by law, invested in government securities(Treasury Notes). Currently these overpayments have been accumulating and now represents treasury notes totaling over 1.9 Trillion in value. As long as these notes represent are paid when they come due then SS will have two revenue streams. Securities which are being cashed in and current payroll taxes. These two revenue streams would be enough to keep SS payments within their income beyond 2018. These two revenue streams would not be enough for the projected costs of retirement perpetually. Benefit payment is growing too rapidly. Even with both revenue streams it would crash at some point, just not that soon. Bush’s statement was predicated on SS only having the one revenue stream(payroll taxes) and the implication was that the government was not going to honor the securities that the “surplus” has been purchasing for us for these many years.
Enjoy,
Steven
There isn’t any surplus, it has all been spent. It’s in IOUs, aka Treasury bills.
Regards,
Shodan
This is exactly the kind of cynicism that President Bush is relying on to sell his plan and the cynicism that he’s feeding with false statements like SS will be bankrupt in 2018. The administration will parse their statements when called on it (“No. no. that’s not we meant…”), but they know damn well the impression that’s left with the public is that Social Security will go out of business in 2018. In actuality what they want to do is take a big fat SURPLUS in the Social Security Trust fund and instead of lending it to the government, (or at least some portion of it) turn it over to Wall Street in the form of private investments.
Now now… I know no one is proposing taking CURRENT SS assets and allowing SS participants to invest those… But Bush IS proposing allowing that future payments (or some portion of those) be DIVERTED from the SS Trust Fund into private accounts, thus reducing the amount of money SS has available to pay current and near term beneficiaries (including , presumably, those that will need to be paid out after SS goes “bankrupt”). That’s what’s so ironic about this whole thing to me. Bush is saying he’s going to somehow make the system more solvent by giving it less money to work with than it has right now under current law. But again, that’s not what this is really about… it’s about diverting SS taxes to Wall Street.
Bush has promised that beneficiaries who are 55 or older we’ll be unaffected by his proposal. Now how do you so suppose he’s going to fill the gap? Why, by borrowing. But instead of the SS Trust Fund holding the note (and, by extension , SS beneficiares), it will be foreign governments, private investors, etc. Why is the debt any more valid than if it’s owed to the SS Trust Fund? Why not cut out the middle man? I’ll tell you why. Because it’s the middle man Bush is looking out for.
Sorry. I was referring to this quote:
when I speaking of “this kind of cynicism”.
So no worries. Unless, for some reason, you think the government should default on its debt, contrary to the constitution.
I mean, hey, unless I buckle down and/or raise my income, I could have easily outspent myself like some Americans and incurred more debt than I could pay back. Think my credit card companies would buy the argument that I don’t have to pay them back because to do so I’d need to spend money more intelligently? Because, hot damn, I’d love that. Maybe I can default on my school loan, too…
mtgman Shodan and others
As in most of these GD arguments folks don’t answer the question put to them.
Originally Posted by Lemur866
Polycarp, you didn’t pay into Social Security for 38 years to pay for your own social security payments today (or tomorrow, I don’t know how close to retirement you are). You paid into social security for 38 years to pay for all the people who were getting social security THEN.
The statement by Polycarp was he had paid his own SS. Lemur866 disagreed.
But if you just take into account that the average persons lifespan is 77.2 years (Source CDC) Poly will only draw for 12.2 years. Well less than the surplus will last.
So He is paying his own SS.
The surplus won’t last a single year if the govt defaults on the T-bills like Bush is implying with his use of those calculations. And quite frankly, given the defecit level and the unsustainable levels of foreign investment in government T-bills which underwrite the overspending, I don’t think believing the SS trust fund’s T-bills will be worthless when it comes time to pay actual benefits is all that unrealistic.
Enjoy,
Steven