Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats Threaten Social Security
kerrythomas.com ^ | May 23, 2008 | Kerry Thomas

Posted on 05/23/2008 12:58:16 PM PDT by mukraker

The internet and mainstream media are full of stories claiming John McCain threatens Social Security. That’s nothing new. The Democrats use this rhetoric every election. “(Fill in the name of any Republican candidate) will cut your Social Security” is a standard in the Democrat playbook.

The reality is that it is the Democrats who are threatening Social Security.

We’ve known for years that the Social Security system faces a structural financial crisis. The first of the Baby Boomers are beginning to retire already. Their grandchildren are the ones who are paying for their Social Security retirement benefits, and there just aren’t enough of these kids to pay the bill.

Where once we had 10 working people to pay the benefits of each retiree, we now have three. And in a few short years, that number will be down to two.

Currently, each employee pays 15.3% of their paycheck to the Social Security system. (Remember, the 7.65% that is deducted from your paycheck is matched by your employer. That amount is part of your pay, even though you never see it.)

In order to maintain the current level of benefits paid from the Social Security system, estimates are that as much as 40% of future earnings will have to be taxed from every employees’ paycheck. That’s just the FICA tax; it doesn’t include any other taxes on your paycheck.

And Congress keeps adding new programs to the Social Security system. New benefits for children. New benefits for the disabled. Even new benefits for illegal immigrants.

Republicans have repeatedly proposed various private sector solutions to this structural Social Security deficit. Most of these solutions include the option of allowing you the choice to remain in the current system, or to defer a portion of your Social Security taxes into a private retirement account, held in your name.

Currently in Congress, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan is proposing his “Roadmap For America’s Future.”

This plan includes a provision that will “preserve the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.” It also “offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal employees. Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets to their heirs, and a guarantee that total benefits from the personal accounts will not be less than they would have been under the current system.”

The Social Security Trust Fund’s accounts have your name on them, but the taxes paid into that fund belong to the government. It’s not your money. All you have is a government promise to one day pay you something in the future. That money can be used in any manner Congress chooses.

Despite public pronouncements to the contrary, there is no “Social Security Lockbox.” The surplus monies that we’ve all been paying into the Social Security Trust Fund have all been borrowed to pay for current government spending. The Trust Fund contains only worthless paper IOUs. How do you suppose they plan to pay off those IOUs? That’s right – higher taxes.

Under Republican proposals such as Ryan’s, you control your retirement funds. You direct your retirement funds to be invested as you see fit.

Years ago, when participation in the Social Security system was still voluntary, one Texas municipality opted out, choosing instead to invest their employees’ retirement funds in private sector instruments. Today, those retirees see an average monthly retirement check of close to $8,000. The average monthly Social Security retirement check is about $1000.

Yet every time such a proposal is brought up, it is the Democrats in Congress who demagogue such proposals as a threat to Social Security. Republicans propose to give Americans a choice in their financial futures. Democrats think you’re too stupid to make such important decisions for yourself, without the helping hand of Big Brother to guide you.

We know the problem is looming. It’s not going away. And it gets bigger every day.

By their refusal to address the problem in a sensible way, in a manner that will actually work, the Democrats are compounding the problem.

So the next time you hear a Democrat spouting their tired rhetoric about Republicans threatening Social Security, just remember. It is the Democrats who actually are a direct threat to your Social Security.


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: socialsecurity

1 posted on 05/23/2008 12:58:18 PM PDT by mukraker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mukraker

Incompetence bordering on treason.


2 posted on 05/23/2008 1:10:10 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mukraker
Oh my GOD!
I’m going to lose my Social Security! And I don’t start drawing it until next month!

Actually, unless Congress and the White House both go Democrat I’ll not be too concerned, but I do wish someone would get off their can and actually do some work.

3 posted on 05/23/2008 1:22:08 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mukraker
The most recent figures I've seen indicate that the unfunded liability from Medicare is likely to be a significantly larger problem than Social Security. Our Social Security problems are small compared to Europe and Japan, because we are reproducing at close to replacement levels.

Still, its unforgivable that our politicians refuse to make the small changes to Social Security that would avoid a future crisis. Individual retirement accounts would be great, but simply increasing the retirement age to match increases in lifespan and making small adjustments to the automatic cost of living formula would greatly improve the financial stability of the system with minimal pain.

Any proposed changes are always met with protests about fairness, but the most unfair outcome of all is doing nothing about the system until it collapses, leaving future retirees with no time to plan for the changes which will then be forced on them.

4 posted on 05/23/2008 1:23:25 PM PDT by CaptainMorgantown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mukraker
The most recent figures I've seen indicate that the unfunded liability from Medicare is likely to be a significantly larger problem than Social Security. Our Social Security problems are small compared to Europe and Japan, because we are reproducing at close to replacement levels.

Still, its unforgivable that our politicians refuse to make the small changes to Social Security that would avoid a future crisis. Individual retirement accounts would be great, but simply increasing the retirement age to match increases in lifespan and making small adjustments to the automatic cost of living formula would greatly improve the financial stability of the system with minimal pain.

Any proposed changes are always met with protests about fairness, but the most unfair outcome of all is doing nothing about the system until it collapses, leaving future retirees with no time to plan for the changes which will then be forced on them.

5 posted on 05/23/2008 1:24:26 PM PDT by CaptainMorgantown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainMorgantown; R. Scott
I tend to lump Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid all into the same basket.

I forgot to mention that currently in Congress, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan is proposing his “Roadmap For America’s Future.”

Rtan's plan includes a provision that will “preserve the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.” It also “offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal employees. Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets to their heirs, and a guarantee that total benefits from the personal accounts will not be less than they would have been under the current system.”

6 posted on 05/23/2008 1:43:56 PM PDT by mukraker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mukraker

According to uor dumbocRat overlords, we are too stupid to take care of ourselves, so we have no business worrying about our future. They will take care of it, don’t you worry.


7 posted on 05/23/2008 2:44:25 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mukraker
I tend to lump Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid all into the same basket.

I wouldn't lump Medicaid with the others. People pay into Social Security their whole working life, and pay premiums for Medicare.
Medicaid is strictly a freebee from the taxpayers.

I like the idea of being able to opt out of Social Security - even a 1/3 opt out. The less money in the "lock box" the better off we are. Too many politicians have keys to it.

8 posted on 05/24/2008 3:20:36 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson