Bush Says Social Security Shortchanges Blacks... Developing...

Drudge ^

[Next_Time_NJ]

Bush Says Social Security Shortchanges Blacks... Developing...

[FreedomNeocon]

I just don't see the purpose.

Is BUSH going to actually advoate SS reform that says blacks get it at age X and black females get it at Y, but white men don't get it for 10 years later.

Or some pay a higher percentage because they are an asian man instead of a hispanic women.

If that is the 'logical' end to raising this arguement I think BUSH just stepped into it.. BIG TIME.

Again, if we start this with SS... if we start defining benetifts and payments based on race and sex... why not do it with Welfare? Why not with public Schooling? If a certain race or sex can be STATISTICALLY shown to follow a pattern, do we change that law TOO?

Do we say since white asian men rarely make use of Welfare, should white asian men be exempt from that portion of their Taxes?

What if it is statistically shown that 'white catholics' hardly EVER make use of the public school system. They go to private school, so should all 'white catholics' be expemt from paying towards the public school system???

Seriously... this idea is SO STUPID, I can't beleive Bush echoed it.

He BETTER drop this BS now.. its BIG LOOSER.

[HighFlier]

To illustrate something that bothers me about this entire thing - take life insurance.

Since it is true according to President Bush that Blacks have a shorter lifespan, then why are the life insurance rates the same for all races?

The companies can charge men more and smokers more, but they can't charge according to race. Therefore, Blacks are getting a break on insurance, but now the President appears to be ready to tamper with government handouts based on race (which no doubt will also favor Blacks).

Is this the future of our country? Everything based on racial spoils?

What would FReepers be saying if this were a Clinton statement instead of Bush? Yet this article has surprisingly few posts.

[FreedomNeocon]

Aye.. is a slow thread.

I don't know what else to say... the simplest way to put it is:

No matter you intentions, even if they are 'good', baseing ANYTHING on Race is RACISM... it will only lead to inequality, division, and ineffiencies

[Ryan Bailey]

This article shows very well an outstanding disparity in the racial equity of our Social Security pragramme as it today exists.

Of course there are a great many other reasons why the system needs to be reformed. It is my hope that this new report will fuel fruitful discussion of the inherent racism in the Socialist program.

[Dolphy]

I think you are wrong about life insurance. Family history is considered which captures the conditions that serve to shorten lifespans and consequently leads to higher rates. As for social security, I think it's more than fair to point out the inequities of the current system as way to promote changes. The Democrats are using socio-economic arguments to resist change so it's helpful to shine the light of truth on them.

[mhking]

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[kevkrom]

Is BUSH going to actually advoate SS reform that says blacks get it at age X and black females get it at Y, but white men don't get it for 10 years later.

Where have you been hiding out? Bush's plan is for private personal accounts to supplement/replace SS. Those accounts are assets that can be passed on to heirs, rather than just having the government swallow it up, which is esentially what happens under the current system.

Bush's proposal doesn't change who gets benefits when.

[groanup]

Is BUSH going to actually advoate SS reform that says blacks get it at age X and black females get it at Y, but white men don't get it for 10 years later.

Or some pay a higher percentage because they are an asian man instead of a hispanic women.

If that is the 'logical' end to raising this arguement I think BUSH just stepped into it.. BIG TIME.

Hold your horses free, Bush isn't advocating anything of the kind and he is pointing out the fact that one class of people pay the same into the system as other classes but don't live as long so don't collect the same out of they system. Neal Boortz has been hammering this point for years.

Bush is advocating ownership so that the system is fair to everyone.

[HighFlier]

You could be correct about life insurance from the angle of family history, however, I believe that if the insurance business were able to operate on the most efficient system, their algorithms would include race, just as they do gender and smoking. I don't believe they are able to do this.

Also, remember that some of the shortened black lifespan is due to crime, but a relative being murdered obviously wouldn't effect your rates. Can they charge higher rates based on the neighborhood you live in? I'm not certain, but I don't think so.

Additionally, if Bush chooses to point out that one group isn't getting the same use of SS verses another, isn't fair to look at other programs the same way?

What about Medicare and Medicaid? I don't know how the numbers would work out, but which is more expensive, a healthier group that lives longer or an unhealthier group with a shorter lifespan?

I just think he opens a can of worms when attempting to address things based on race. The race-baiters won't be far behind with there own helpful "solutions."

[Dolphy]

I don't know all of the life insurance rating factors either so I can't comment further. I do think that family history does a pretty good job of capturing genetic propensity though.

As for Social Security I do think it's fair to counter those that believe that the current system works. It doesn't work well for blacks, it won't work well for younger workers, it doesn't work well for people in the lower socio-economic range, etc. The more people understand how it doesn't work the more they will be open to alternatives. The underlying theme is not what more the government can do but how better served these folks will be if they own their own retirement accounts.

[driveserve]

I don't think he or any sane conservative would/will. Sounds like a NAACP/Jackson/Sharpton plank along the lines of "reparations".

I do think you may have misunderstood his point however. The point being that blacks are disproportionately the victims of this Ponzi scheme because they do pay as much in but because of the shorter life span, aren't around to see it come back. Therefore, let's privatize the SS system so that everybody, including blacks, can take control of their own lives & futures. Do what they think is best with their money, instead of having Algore & his ilk be their benevolent guardians making the decisions for them/us.

[HighFlier]

I've got some additional info.

I talked with an insurance broker. The main points are that although family history can be taken into account for life insurance, race and location cannot be used. Remember it is okay to take sex and smoking into account.

The race factor might partially be covered by family history, but if it is okay do say that for race, why can't family history do the same for sex? There is an inconsistency.

Another inconsistency is location. Auto insurance rates are partially based on location, but life insurance is not allowed to be based on location.

I live in the DC area. More people were murdered in the city than were killed by the snipers over the same period of time. So why does the government disallow companies to exercise freedom in setting rates on whatever basis they wish, including location or possibly race?

Point is, if race is to be ignored (forcibly) in some instances involving life insurance/medical insurance why is it allow in another (i.e. Bushes speech on SS). I promise you this action opens a can of worms.

The means does not justify the ends. In this case, Bush wants to drum up support for this SS reform plan (the ends) so he uses a racial disparity (blacks die sooner) as his means. This action is very Clintonesque and has the potential to draw lines racially as to who gets what. In short, I consider his means divisive.

[Dolphy]

I have no idea of the history of life insurance rates and what battles may have been waged in terms of their rating practices. However, it is not race but rather objective health conditions or lifestyle factors that are responsible for shorter life expectancies. These are the factors that determine rates and insurability.

Regardless, I don't see that this opens any can of worms. For decades racial disparities have been used to fund countless programs, many of which today are blamed for the destruction of the black family. If the President wants to point out one of these in making the case to fix a broken program, that's fine with me.

[HighFlier]

I just discovered that a member of the Heritage Foundation wrote a piece about six years ago that pointed out the disparity in SS benefits that blacks receive verses whites.

Here is the response I sent them which sums up a lot of what I was trying to relay to you and other FReepers. Please let me know what you think:


While I admire the push by the Heritage Foundation to help enact change with the Social Security system, using race as a method to do so seems to me be inappropriate at best.

Since Social Security is a government program, it seems to me that if one looks at disparities in that program based on race then it is necessary to view government programs and the impact of federal laws in their entirety based on race. No cherry picking should be allowed.

If it is true that blacks on the whole pay more into Social Security than they receive in benefits, then it probably follows that whites receive more in benefits than they have paid into the system. Does this formula hold true for other programs such as Medicare and Medicaid? Given that whites live longer and healthier lives, do they use more funds from Medicare and Medicaid than blacks who use the system for a shorter period of time, but may require more services during that time?

Other programs that are funded by taxes not directly earmarked for those programs should also be fair game. Based on taxes paid, which group receives the most benefits from government welfare programs, blacks or whites? What about educational grants and scholarships?

What about the cost of securing our transportation system post 9-11? Do the more affluent whites travel by air more frequently than blacks? The taxes on the tickets purchased probably do not cover all the security costs associated with a person's air travel. In this case, whites probably receive more out of the system than they put in as compared to blacks.

Then there is the life insurance business. Federal laws prohibit rates to be based on location and race. It is okay to discriminate based on sex and smoking habits, but there are statistics that clearly show that there is not just a disparity between the life expectancy of men versus women, smoker versus non-smoker, but also of black versus white, District of Columbia verses Cheyenne, Wyoming. It is acceptable to charge different rates for car insurance based on location but not on life insurance.

Life insurance is able take into account family history. However, death by murder at age 45 merits a valid life insurance claim the same as death by heart attack at age 45, but deaths by other than natural causes are not used for calculating insurance premiums. Federal laws prohibiting disparities in insurance premiums in essence equates to one group receiving a disproportion share of benefits as compared to the actual cost of those benefits.

The ends (Social Security reform) does not justify the means (selectively using statistics based on race). Is it our goal as conservatives to ensure that every outcome in society is equal when defined in terms of race? Is race going to be the standard by which the success of every program or every law is to be judged?

To achieve this desired outcome based on race, it appears we will need a new government bureaucracy - The Department of Racial Disparity.