Posted on 08/14/2005 6:47:30 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
...a few months ago the conventional wisdom was that President Bush would get his way on Social Security. ...Bush's privatization drive flopped so badly that the topic has almost disappeared from national discussion.
...I'd like to revisit Social Security...
Many pundits and editorial boards still give Bush credit for trying to "reform" Social Security. ...Bush came to bury Social Security, not to save it. ...the Bush plan would have transformed Social Security from a social insurance program into a mutual fund, with nothing except a name in common with the system F.D.R. created.
...Bush repeatedly lied about the current system. Oh, I'm sorry, was that a rude thing to say? ...the fact is that ...Bush repeatedly said things that were demonstrably false and that his staff must have known were false. The falsehoods ranged from his claim that Social Security is unfair to African-Americans....
...the administration politicized the Social Security Administration and used taxpayer money to promote a partisan agenda. Social Security officials participated in what were in effect taxpayer- financed political rallies, from which skeptical members of the public were excluded.
...Last week Jo Anne Barnhart, the commissioner of Social Security, published an op-ed article claiming that Social Security as we know it was designed for a society in which people didn't live long enough to collect a lot of benefits. "The number of older Americans living now," wrote Ms. Barnhart, "is greater than anyone could have imagined in 1935."
...it turns out that an article on the Social Security Administration's Web site, "Life Expectancy for Social Security," specifically rejects the idea the Social Security was originally "designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits," and the related idea that the system faces problems from "a supposed dramatic increase in life expectancy in recent years."....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I oppose privitization of social security for a host of reasons about which I have posted, but Krugman fails to mention what the projection verus reality projection percentage number of retirees when the Boomers retire. His 2000 number reflects the the depression baby and (and immigrant for that matter) bust, not boom. That is why there is an actuarial deficit, in large part, which Krugman also does not mention. In a word, Krugman is not fair and balanced.
Social security was never intended to be a retirement fund. It was intended to be a safety net for those who did not save for their retirement.
This has nothing to do with "privatization". This has to do with common sense. Krugman, like any typical liberal, loves to attack the President's plan, but doesn't prevent an alternate solution of his own. Social Security will not heal itself. Raising taxes for an already pitiful benefit isn't the solution.
The more I see how the left handles Social Security along with the great majority of this country's populace, the more of a scam this program comes off to me as. It is amazing how this government has managed to keep this scam running for so long.
You are right..if it is a safety net make it a flat tax on 100% of income..not the lowest. Remove the lie that it is retirement plan. Then let us save on our own via 401/ira for retirement.
The left wants the 14% from the middle class and poor to run the rest of their plans..pure and simple. They leave the rich off..because they are the rich left.
Ever heard of the term "moral hazard"?
I think I may have invented the term. I certainly have used it more than anyone else on this forum I suspect. :)
The original proposed bill: http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/fdrbill.pdf has the following text:
26 The term "wages" shall mean the total of every form of remuneration received by an employee from any employer, whether paid directly or indirectly by an employer, including salaries, commissions, bonuses, and the reasonable money value of rent, housing, lodging, board ... payments in kind, and similar advantages; but it shall not include any such remuneration received by a nonmanual worker who is employed at a monthly salary of more than $250 a month.
Thank you for coming up with that information. I had gone back to read the original bill but missed that exclusion.
I am amazed at the number of people who think it's the job of the federal government to take care of them in retirement.
Social security is a tax. It was devised by FDR and his cronies to win the votes of people just coming out of the depression.
Just want to make myself clear. The bill I linked to wasn't the one that was finally passed. The law as passed was changed to a $3,000 cap on taxed wages and salary, similar to our current $90,000 cap.
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.