Question about Bush SS reform

Great Debates
21

In all seriousness, can someone point to a cogent mission statement for social security? What exactly is the point of social security?

My own feelings about social security is that it is nothing more than a safety net that ensures that there will not be droves of homeless octegenarians roaming the streets bothering folks. Its a promise that, if all else fails, there will be something for you when you are no longer productive. You won’t be on street.

From this perpective, how do any of the currently proposed modifications further the goals/mission statement of Social Security? I can’t see that they do anything along these lines. The much maligned “lock box” seems much better suited to the rather simple aims of Social Security (as I see them). I mean, its a pretty basic rule that if you are saving money for a particular purpose, you should not spend that money on other things.

If the government wants to grow those funds by investing them, great! But since Social Security (in my opinion) should be about guaranteeing a minimum subsistence level for folks that don’t have enough to get by, we should put paid to the idea that Social Security is some kind of retirement plan. Its a saftey net, not a pension.

I’d be much happier modifying Social Security to guarantee the current recipients that they will continue to receive at least what they do now, relative to inflation, and limiting future recipients on an income basis, i.e. above a certain yearly retirement income, Social Security is prorated and eventually phased out. If this is how it already works, let me know. But the fact is I continue to get yearly reports telling me how much money I’m going to get in retirement. It will be nice to get the money, but unless I lose everything, I’ll not need that money.

We should break this idea of Social Security as a pension and make sure people understand that its a safety net. I’m not holding my breath though, as the Bush administration doesn’t seem to like safety nets. So I’m sure we’ll be stuck with personal retirement accounts.

CJ

22

The point is… well… social security. That we, as a society, will be secure from the harshness of being left out to dry. That the disabled, the elderly, and generally the unemployable, have a fund, however small, to draw upon to get by. Social security is not a retirement plan. Much of it goes to, as I mentioned, the disabled and handicapped. The elderly recieve social security along with medicare, since there is no system in place to protect them and provide them with necessary health care.

A brief cultural history you are probably already familiar with: Between 1900 and 1930, America, along with the rest of the industrial world, was undergoing rapid urbanization. Whereas previous to this time period, most families lived with several generations under one roof being self-sustaining, and the family taking care of it self. In urban settings, the “nuclear family” took hold, where it was harder to live with mutliple generations and earn a living. This is basically the model for our social construction to this day; two parents, their children until they are 18. Now, whereas before, a family took care of its own until death and in the case of handicap, a structure was needed to meet the demands of urban life and the population boom that came along with it. In those days, you didn’t exactly invest in a 401k, and people could barely scrape by with what they had, much less fund their own retirement, or rely on a pension from a company (which sometimes would have a happenstance of firing people before they would get their pension).

This is where the idea of social security comes from. It was a vital element in society when introduced.

Then things started going wrong. The government started “borrowing” from social security funds, and otherwise mismanaging the fund (largely due to rapid military expansion). This leaves us with the problem that a huge generation is about to retire, and the money isn’t there. (Again, I’m pointing out the obvious).

But Social Security is much more than a stipend to help the elderly get by. It goes to help the disabled, the mentally ill, and other “unemployables”. The alotment is usually pretty small - not really enough to get by on itself, but when people have to, they find a way. Most comes with medical coverage, but you have to meet the requirements.

So privatizing social security is a poor solution to a complicated issue. If people like Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan would have been investing in the American people instead of the American Army, we would not be facing this dire a situation. You’re talking about taking a system designed to help the poor and unemployable get by when they would otherwise be left out on the street and changing it into a cash bonanza for the wealthiest. If Bush had taken Clinton’s surplus and invested it into social security instead of a vote-getting unnecessary tax break, for instance, it would have been a step in the right direction (though just a drop in the bucket compared to the social security debt).

What is going to happen is that a lot of people are going to be left out in the cold. They will probably become the responsibility of their families, in an ironic turn back into history, but they will also be a financial drain, with the money coming from consumers. They’ll need a whole lot more tax cuts to afford keeping grandma and grandpa around.

Privatizing social security is turning our back on ourselves for the chance to make a quick buck and avoid a large debt. It is irresponsible socially and economically - a continuing trend in the Bush Administration.

As appealing as the idea sounds to Republicans, you can’t cut taxes and spend money at the same time, unless you are borrowing from a slush fund which you can privatize and cancel the debt from. It isn’t a permanent solution, either.

Then when the next depression hits, we’re back in the same hole we dug ourselves into. The plan is simply not progressive, as much as the Right may be salivating over that much money for gullible people to have to invest into them.

23

This was actually considered in 1983, when the SS system was changed to start taking in surpluses. The decision reached then, by a panel led by a young (well, younger) Alan Greenspan, was that the gov’t would be better off investing in less lecrutive but more secure Treasury Bonds, which is in fact what they’ve been doing. I would say that if investing in the stock market was decided to be a bad idea in 1983 for the general fund, it would be a worse idea for individual accounts since with the general fund shortfalls in some investments could be covered with surpluses from other investments. In the case of individual accounts though, surpluses from investments that did really well stay with individuals while the gov’t would probably be forced to cover the difference with investments that did poorly through a seperate saftey net program.

As others have said, the current plan is to accompany the private investment accounts with a cut in benefits (otherwise, there wouldn’t be a point). So while investing may technically be optional, if the plan were to be put in place, the only way to have a chance of getting the same money out is to go with the private investment accounts.

24

Instead of reforming the Schutzstaffel, shouldn’t he just try to abolish it?

25

My impression is that, problems aside (and as Kimstu link explains, the problems fairly easy to fix and not terribly imeninent) the SS program is pretty popular. Consider it looks like Bush will have a serious uphill battle just shrinking the program with this proposal. I can’t imagine that he could find the support to abolish it all togeather.

26

Panzer Division Leibstandarte tomndebb blitzed right past you with that one.

27

When you whoosh upon a star…

28

Once again the Nazis make me look like an idiot. I knew there was a reason I didn’t like those guys.

29

What do you think “reform” is a codeword for?

30

Your assessment mirrors mine. The point I was trying to make is that we’re having a debate about Social Security without actually knowing what we’re debating. Not us alone, really, but the whole country. The Bush administration is trying to fix a problem they haven’t defined in terms that are inapplicable to the situation in the first place. The point of social security is not to provide people with a retirement. It is to ensure that our citizens are taken care of if all else fails: to provide them with social security as you pointed out. Its not a retirement plan, its insurance. This is why this situation frustrates me. Previous administrations, all of them, have raided the money set aside for social security, which is kind of like not paying your insurance premiums. Now we’ve got a bunch of claims coming up and we’re not so sure that the insurance company will pay out. And instead of doing the upright and correct thing, which is to pony up and pay out, we’re being told that sorry, we’ll have to get a new insurance policy. If you didn’t have coverage or didn’t have enough coverage under the old policy, too bad.

The administration’s apparent “fixes” don’t do anything to fix the problems.

CJ