Blogcritics: Comments on The Social Security "Crisis" Is Just Greed

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 25 Dec 2004 19:03:13 EST

I love it Steve! Webb is right - bring numbers - so I'll try to boil some of that SSA stuff down into smaller bites and continue (maybe not until Jan). There is no f@#$%$#%$ing crisis, damn it!

Comment by Steve S

Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:56:39 EST

Hal, I found an interesting commentary here, which I found via a link on Atrios. Click on the 'comments', then scroll about halfway down to read the comment by Bruce Webb. Most interesting.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:33:37 EST

Apparently, Al, I wasn't clear enough: The $1 trillion to the financial services firms is in addition to the $2-4 trillion in transition costs.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:25:47 EST

Thanks to the link, Spiderleaf, to the Krugman story on what actually happened under the Bush scenario when it was tried in other countries. (link opens in new window) It's nice to see some reality amidst all these hoodwinked Pollyannas.

"A reasonable prediction for the real rate of return on personal accounts in the U.S. is 4 percent or less. If we introduce a system with British-level management fees, net returns to workers will be reduced by more than a quarter. Add in deep cuts in guaranteed benefits and a big increase in risk, and we're looking at a "reform" that hurts everyone except the investment industry."

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:19:16 EST

"Stock market returns" are another issue and an attempt to muddy the waters. While it is at a "3-1/2 year high" that's a lie by omission, "disingenuous" by definition. The fact is that it's still below where it was when Bush took office. And the return over a 50-year span is more like 6%, but then only on average, not for individual stocks (many have lost their assets over the same period). To get that return, you would have to put your retirement funds into an index fund, and pay the fund management fees the financial industry is champing at the bit to get.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:00:26 EST

It's not a crisis because it's easily fixed, and the proposed fix is not a fix - it makes the problem worse and will create a crisis. The Social Security Trustees project that the Social Security shortfall will be $3.8 trillion in 75 years (their standard time scale), and the fund won't go negative until 2042. The Bush solution is not a solution. 1. It requires $2 trillion in borrowing (which, with interest, will be more than the current shortfall with nothing done). 2. Financial management fees will take another $trillion and this will come directly out of your retirement funds. 3. The "Plan Two" that is the current favorite will reduce benefits and require a 50% increase in the payroll tax. Just letting things roll along as they are will cost you far less than what Bush wants to do. The only positive thing to come out of his plan to let you "own" your retirement funds is that the financial services industry will get a lot of your money. They are salivating already, and their stock prices have already risen on the expectation of the windfall. Once you erase his foolish, fiscally irresponsible approach, you find that the situation is manageable, and the shortfall be be eliminated fairly easily 1. During that same period that the $3.8 trillion shortfall is created, Bush's tax gift to the rich adds up to, or rather takes away, $8.7 trillion. Rolling back half the cut would fix the problem. 2. The upper limit on payroll-taxable income could be raised to, say, $120,000 from the current under $90K. 3. The qualification age could be gradually raised to 70, then higher as life expectancy increases. 4. Some combination of the above. Once the "impending doom" scenario is removed, the country can take a more reasoned approach to trying to fix the situation once and for all. The idea of making "everyone personally responsible for their own money and retirement" is a nice fairy tale for children, but it will leave a huge section of the population starving. Consider the 8 million unemployed who can't put away any money. The additional 7 million who are looking for work but not counted on government unemployment lists, and clearly aren't increasing their nest eggs. And the tens of millions earning the minimum wage and the 45 million who can't afford health care, never mind retirement. Moving further up the income scale, there's still a problem. Today, 94% of those with 401K plans do not contribute as much as they could. What's the point of saying they can put even more away, when they don't or can't put away as much as they are allowed to already? Now, whether there should be any Social Security at all is, or should be, a different issue and should be debated separately. Currently, the right is simply trying to eliminate it under the guise of "privatization" and "ownership" and "personal responsibility." I've put together a list of posts on the subject, with details and links to other sources. (For those of you who tried my site before, note that I've speeded it up and it is now useable with dial-up :-)

Comment by Paul Roy

Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:30:53 EST

So let me get this straight. The government continuing to take a significant portion of my income for social security (along with all of the other taxes) and then expecting that I "will receive only about 75-80% of currently-expected benefits" (that sounds like a best case scenario!) is not a crisis? I'm not saying Bush's plan is a winner, admittedly I don't know enough about it, but your "don't worry about it" approach is worse. How about this simple approach. Make everyone personnaly responsible for their own money and retirement. Just think if I had all the money I dumped into social security in even a 2% savings account, let alone a 10% mutual fund. Sure the stock market can be risky, or alot of people will not invest in their retirement. Oh. dont worry, the liberals will always be there to bail them out. It is time to scap the whole damn social security system, and just let me do what I want with my own money.

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:55:34 EST

Progressivism is hardly the center. We all want to be the center because nobody wants to be the radical, but wanting it doesn't make it so. Progressivism is far closer to socialism than today's mixed economy, which, despite my usual wailing and knashing of teeth, is actually pretty darned centrist. Someone who touts the Industrial Revolution as an era to strive for, when workers toiled in the steel plants for 16 hours on end, with no overtime, when government pandered to big business with subsidies and tariffs, and when there were more Bob Cratchit's who lived with abuse on the job, no way to provide a Christmas meal to his kids, and no health care to save Timmy's life, than there were Ebeenezers; such a person will of course see Progressivism as radical. When Jefferson reworded Locke's 'Life Liberty and Property', to the 'Pursuit of Happiness', one thing that did not change was the concept of 'FOR ALL'. Only Progressivism keeps that in mind, Mike. Although I haven't brought it up, I should point out that Democrats come closest to Progressivism, but even they do not hit the nail on the head 100% of the time. So don't apply everything I say to Democrats. Maybe 85-90% of the time, they hit the mark though. No other ideology comes close.

Comment by Al Barger

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:34:44 EST

Huh-huh. Mike said "poop."

Comment by Mike Kole

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:08:38 EST

Al- Oddly enough, one of the banner ads running on this very page this minute reads: "Liberal Poop For Your Soul. WAR, you can't spell it without 'w'. Be the first on your block to wear one of these fiesty little anti-Bush goodies." Heh.

Comment by Al Barger

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:21:40 EST

Also, as to the risks of investing in the market, the Dow has closed the last two days higher even than before 9/11. Wanting to let workers get in on some of that wealth being created in our markets rather than continuing to have the government squander your retirement money? That's just "greed." Finally, I'm second to no one as a South Park fan, but merely calling my writing poo does not in fact constitute a legitimate refutation.

Comment by Mike Kole

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:14:14 EST

Steve S said, "How can one create a savings account when in this conservative government it takes all their income to live day to day?" Well, Steve, if we weren't taxed so heavily by this government that is a stew that is about 51% conservative, 49% liberal, we could have more savings. Good grief. Progressivism is hardly the center. We all want to be the center because nobody wants to be the radical, but wanting it doesn't make it so. Progressivism is far closer to socialism than today's mixed economy, which, despite my usual wailing and knashing of teeth, is actually pretty darned centrist.

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:04:08 EST

Funny, Al, that in your commentary on Social Security, you make frequent references to 'crap'. Social Security needs buttressing but is not in the immediate danger you harp about. Here is a multi-page list of the misinformation that the news media has been putting outlately on social security. Here is the blog of the gazillionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks. He offers a good analysis on SS and what can be done to bolster it, and offers a good analysis on the dangers of priviatizing it. Recommended reading and good research starting point for those interested in the subject.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:46:52 EST

I checked your link, Al, and you're right - it is poop.

Comment by Al Barger

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:18:09 EST

Hal's liberal game of "let's pretend" is pleasant and reassuring, but has very little relationship with reality. In fact, Social Security surpluses (the difference between current monthly taxes and benefits) are now less than $100 billion annually, and expected to go negative rapidly once the boomers begin retiring about three years from now. The numbers rapidly get much worse from there. How is a current worker to retiree ratio of just 2:1 going to work with no money put back? In fact, the system absolutely cannot continue as it is. The entire structure is untenable. The multi-trillion dollar "transition cost" is not some subsidy to brokerage firms, but a payback to beneficiaries whose Social Security taxes have been squandered for every damned thing the federal government has porked money out on for generations. It sounds bad, but it seems as if many liberals would rather deny reality and bring real hardship and suffering on everyone rather than risk Charles Schwab making a buck on helping us fix the situation. The pinko fantasyland of FDR is crashing down, and we can start dealing with it now in a responsible manner, or just remain in denial until the checks start bouncing and we have a real feces tsunami. The straight poop on Social Security is HERE in my campaign archives.

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:21:30 EST

yes, spiderleaf. Progressivism.

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:20:16 EST

The only one responsible for one's retirement, should be himself...have we forgotten what a savings account is? Benjamin, your last sentence directly contradicts your first. How can one create a savings account when in this conservative government it takes all their income to live day to day? Your ideology that Social Security equates with communism is absurd. So is the ideology you promote that retirement equates with being lazy. in Marxist theory, socialism is the stage in between capitolism and communism You need to disregard Marxist theory, history has shown it to not work. On an ideological spectrum, you have Libertarianism at one end, next comes Conservatism, then Progressivism, which is the middle pivot point, then comes Radical Liberalism, then Socialism, then Communism. In Communism, all things are equal. All people are equally entitled to the 'goods'. With Social Security, you get out of it, based on what you put into it. A clear and definite distinction. Social Security is more aligned with Progressivism, which goes back to my analogy on the Taxes thread of two people plowing a field together where both win. The grumpy person on the sidelines who did not plow the field, should not expect to partake of the resulting crop. In Communism, the person sitting on the sideline is equally entitled to share, while having contributed none of the labor.

Comment by spiderleaf

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:10:42 EST

I was responding to you: Secondly, what ever happened to families providing for each other, or the graciousness to support the elderly in our own community? I was pointing out that Social Security is a community program on a large scale. It becomes necessary to secure a stable and functioning society because if we truly left capitalism unfettered we would have people dying in the streets because they couldn't afford to feed themselves, or should they happen to get sick, I don't know, maybe cancer, or MS, or one of those diseases that if you are uninsured would be completely unaffordable to treat. And if we left it up to families to provide for each other (which they do anyway because SS hardly provides enough money to live well) and one of the wage earning members of that family falls ill, or loses their job, or dies, what will become of everyone else? are there no workhouses? In terms of quoting dictionaries, this is what Cambridge says about all three forms of thought/ gov't: communism: the belief in a society without different classes in which the methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members and everyone works as much as they can and receives what they need socialism: the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs capitalism: an economic, political and social system based on private ownership of property, business and industry, and directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people None of these sound quite right to me, although I see myself as residing between socialism and capitalism. Is there something behind door number 3?

Comment by Benjamin J Perry

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:51:22 EST

Allowing millions to not contribute to a retirement fund because they need to live day to day now, will create a catastrophic situation when it's time for those millions to retire and they have absolutely nothing. I am sorry, but what is the big deal about retirement anyways? We get so worked up about money, and being lazy... When millions around this country, and many millions more around the world struggle day to day to just survive!!! actually, we fought against communism not socialism. They are not the same actually. No, they aren't the same, precisely by definition, but the concepts are very much similar, and in Marxist theory, socialism is the stage in between capitolism and communism. And by the following quote from you, you are looking to be a communist society: Because we are part of a larger community called this country. Social Security is your community program on a larger scale to ensure a functioning and stable society. By definition, communism is a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed (Merriam-Webster). My question to you, who decided that we(the working people) providing income to those that wish to retire creates a stable society? I in fact believe that it doesn't, who should earn money for sitting around doing nothing? Oh and about welfare and food stamps, I see that as our way of appeasing our own minds that we are helping these people, when in fact I see people everyday that it actually hinders them. There are better ways to helping them than that. The only one responsible for one's retirement, should be himself...have we forgotten what a savings account is?

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:19:39 EST

The purpose of the 401K was so YOU can have a retirement plan YOU own, instead of one controlled and owned by unions or the corporations. Actually Tom, the purpose of the 401k was to shift the responsibility of retirement away from corporate pensions which drained from the pocketbooks of the CEO's and were not productive to the company. The sense of a person spending their whole life working FOR a company wasn't enough to make that company feel they had an obligation to provide for the retirement of said person. The company appreciates that you have worked your whole life for the betterment of the company, but don't expect the favor returned when it comes to retirement. It's too costly to the corporate board.

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:16:08 EST

it strikes me as fairly myopic to base an assessment of the stock market on the performance of it over merely the past 5 years. The Chicken Little routine is way off the mark. That was an example, not the entire basis for the need for Social Security. Look at the first sentence of my comment 7. I said it is to provide a 'basic' income, not sole, not entire. What is interesting is that you consider the Libertarian perspective that of allowing people to live on the edge without for a minute asking whether or not relying on Social Security isn't doing the same thing, allowing people to live on scraps. Social Security needs to be buttressed. I did say that in my comment 7, which you seem to have overlooked. Democrats are working on that. The solution is to change it, not to eliminate it. I have an extremely cautious, frugal friend....now provides him an income of over $1,000/month that he can draw without touching his principal. That's your friend. Do YOU have that too? How can you assume that millions upon millions of people setting up their retirement accounts can achieve the same goal as one man? Do you not see the flaw? For some, this means not contributing to a retirement fund because circumstances are such that they need the money right now for the basics of life. Do you not see the danger in not preparing for your retirement? Should someone need money for the simple basics right now, there are food stamps, welfare and other programs to assist them in getting back on their feet. Since conservatism is destroying the middle class, it's no wonder your friends cannot meet the basics of life. Allowing millions to not contribute to a retirement fund because they need to live day to day now, will create a catastrophic situation when it's time for those millions to retire and they have absolutely nothing. There are only so many street corners that are comfortable to live on.

Comment by JR

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:24:15 EST

It's amazing how much you people hate the American way of life and free market economics. Way to elevate the level of political discourse. Gee, I can't imagine why this country is so divided...

Comment by spiderleaf

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:11:50 EST

actually, we fought against communism not socialism. They are not the same actually. Why should you help pay for my retirement? Because we are part of a larger community called this country. Social Security is your community program on a larger scale to ensure a functioning and stable society.

Comment by Benjamin J Perry

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:55:06 EST

I just have a couple of questions I would like answered. First off, why in the world would I want to pay for your retirement? Secondly, what ever happened to families providing for each other, or the graciousness to support the elderly in our own community? Isn't social security just one of those socialist programs? You know socialism...that thing we fought against for 50 yrs...what korea and vietnam were all about. What makes us think we are so privileged that other people should provide for us so that we can be lazy and do nothing at an age when many people still could be working, and many I know that get bored not working?

Comment by spiderleaf

Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:53:31 EST

Pretty strong words. Hating the American way of life? Far from it. I just prefer the New Deal to the Robber Barons... but that's just me.