Americans Shocked To Learn There Is No Social Security Crisis

[merrill]

THURSDAY, JAN 31, 2013

Americans shocked to learn that there isn’t actually a Social Security crisis

A survey shows that deficit fear-mongering works, but it's overcome by simple counter-arguments.

The Washington Post’s WonkBlog has a scoop: People don’t want to cut Social Security!

The post concerns a recent survey that is actually pretty useful, in that it supports what should already be common sense: People have been led to believe that Social Security faces a crisis in funding.

When you tell people some proposals for fixing it, they
a) overwhelmingly choose to fund it more generously and
b) decide that the program actually does not face any sort of crisis at all.

A marketing firm hired by the National Academy of Social Insurance surveyed a random sampling of Americans and discovered that what people want is to raise taxes on rich (and regular!) people in order to fund more Social Security benefits, which is a good idea because the program is currently pretty stingy by international standards and Americans don’t actually have pensions anymore.

For those unfamiliar with Social Security, it is a modest national social insurance program that helps prevent our nation’s old people from starving in the streets, as many of them used to.

It is not terribly progressive in its redistribution and it is overwhelmingly funded by the middle classes rather than the rich, but both of those factors have helped shield the program from the existential threats that programs intended explicitly for the poor face each time Republicans or neoliberal Democrats get the hankering for some reform.

Politicians from both parties still regularly run on a platform of “ending welfare” and “strengthening Social Security.”

Despite the staggering popularity and undeniable success of Social Security, a lot of political figures are obsessed with killing it. Some people want Social Security ended for honest ideological reasons, but most of the loudest voices in favor of “reforming” the program wish to do so because it would make them or their friends a lot of money by effectively forcing all Americans to gamble their retirements on the fluctuations of the giant Wall Street casino.

Americans shocked to learn that there isn?t actually a Social Security crisis - Salon.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

THURSDAY, JAN 31, 2013

Americans shocked to learn that there isn’t actually a Social Security crisis

A survey shows that deficit fear-mongering works, but it's overcome by simple counter-arguments.

The Washington Post’s WonkBlog has a scoop: People don’t want to cut Social Security!

The post concerns a recent survey that is actually pretty useful, in that it supports what should already be common sense: People have been led to believe that Social Security faces a crisis in funding.

When you tell people some proposals for fixing it, they
a) overwhelmingly choose to fund it more generously and
b) decide that the program actually does not face any sort of crisis at all.

A marketing firm hired by the National Academy of Social Insurance surveyed a random sampling of Americans and discovered that what people want is to raise taxes on rich (and regular!) people in order to fund more Social Security benefits, which is a good idea because the program is currently pretty stingy by international standards and Americans don’t actually have pensions anymore.

For those unfamiliar with Social Security, it is a modest national social insurance program that helps prevent our nation’s old people from starving in the streets, as many of them used to.

It is not terribly progressive in its redistribution and it is overwhelmingly funded by the middle classes rather than the rich, but both of those factors have helped shield the program from the existential threats that programs intended explicitly for the poor face each time Republicans or neoliberal Democrats get the hankering for some reform.

Politicians from both parties still regularly run on a platform of “ending welfare” and “strengthening Social Security.”

Despite the staggering popularity and undeniable success of Social Security, a lot of political figures are obsessed with killing it. Some people want Social Security ended for honest ideological reasons, but most of the loudest voices in favor of “reforming” the program wish to do so because it would make them or their friends a lot of money by effectively forcing all Americans to gamble their retirements on the fluctuations of the giant Wall Street casino.

Americans shocked to learn that there isn?t actually a Social Security crisis - Salon.com

For those unfamiliar with Social Security, it is a modest national social insurance program

True, the benefits are modest. The cost, 12.4% of your income, year after year, is not so modest.

 

[freedombecki]

THURSDAY, JAN 31, 2013

Americans shocked to learn that there isn’t actually a Social Security crisis

A survey shows that deficit fear-mongering works, but it's overcome by simple counter-arguments.

The Washington Post’s WonkBlog has a scoop: People don’t want to cut Social Security!

The post concerns a recent survey that is actually pretty useful, in that it supports what should already be common sense: People have been led to believe that Social Security faces a crisis in funding.

When you tell people some proposals for fixing it, they
a) overwhelmingly choose to fund it more generously and
b) decide that the program actually does not face any sort of crisis at all.

A marketing firm hired by the National Academy of Social Insurance surveyed a random sampling of Americans and discovered that what people want is to raise taxes on rich (and regular!) people in order to fund more Social Security benefits, which is a good idea because the program is currently pretty stingy by international standards and Americans don’t actually have pensions anymore.

For those unfamiliar with Social Security, it is a modest national social insurance program that helps prevent our nation’s old people from starving in the streets, as many of them used to.

It is not terribly progressive in its redistribution and it is overwhelmingly funded by the middle classes rather than the rich, but both of those factors have helped shield the program from the existential threats that programs intended explicitly for the poor face each time Republicans or neoliberal Democrats get the hankering for some reform.

Politicians from both parties still regularly run on a platform of “ending welfare” and “strengthening Social Security.”

Despite the staggering popularity and undeniable success of Social Security, a lot of political figures are obsessed with killing it. Some people want Social Security ended for honest ideological reasons, but most of the loudest voices in favor of “reforming” the program wish to do so because it would make them or their friends a lot of money by effectively forcing all Americans to gamble their retirements on the fluctuations of the giant Wall Street casino.

Americans shocked to learn that there isn?t actually a Social Security crisis - Salon.com

For those unfamiliar with Social Security, it is a modest national social insurance program

True, the benefits are modest. The cost, 12.4% of your income, year after year, is not so modest.

That is indeed a lot of money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

THURSDAY, JAN 31, 2013

Americans shocked to learn that there isn’t actually a Social Security crisis

A survey shows that deficit fear-mongering works, but it's overcome by simple counter-arguments.

The Washington Post’s WonkBlog has a scoop: People don’t want to cut Social Security!

The post concerns a recent survey that is actually pretty useful, in that it supports what should already be common sense: People have been led to believe that Social Security faces a crisis in funding.

When you tell people some proposals for fixing it, they
a) overwhelmingly choose to fund it more generously and
b) decide that the program actually does not face any sort of crisis at all.

A marketing firm hired by the National Academy of Social Insurance surveyed a random sampling of Americans and discovered that what people want is to raise taxes on rich (and regular!) people in order to fund more Social Security benefits, which is a good idea because the program is currently pretty stingy by international standards and Americans don’t actually have pensions anymore.

For those unfamiliar with Social Security, it is a modest national social insurance program that helps prevent our nation’s old people from starving in the streets, as many of them used to.

It is not terribly progressive in its redistribution and it is overwhelmingly funded by the middle classes rather than the rich, but both of those factors have helped shield the program from the existential threats that programs intended explicitly for the poor face each time Republicans or neoliberal Democrats get the hankering for some reform.

Politicians from both parties still regularly run on a platform of “ending welfare” and “strengthening Social Security.”

Despite the staggering popularity and undeniable success of Social Security, a lot of political figures are obsessed with killing it. Some people want Social Security ended for honest ideological reasons, but most of the loudest voices in favor of “reforming” the program wish to do so because it would make them or their friends a lot of money by effectively forcing all Americans to gamble their retirements on the fluctuations of the giant Wall Street casino.

Americans shocked to learn that there isn?t actually a Social Security crisis - Salon.com

For those unfamiliar with Social Security, it is a modest national social insurance program

True, the benefits are modest. The cost, 12.4% of your income, year after year, is not so modest.

That is indeed a lot of money.

I put less into my 401K and will get much much more out of that than my Social Security.

 

[Circe]

There is no crisis at this red hot minute. The crisis is down the road a bit.

They are even changing name to something like US Retirement Benefit. I don't recall the exact moniker. IMO they are planning to make it JUST for retirees and dump all the disabled out onto the states. As it stands right now a lot of people get SS Disability who have never paid in a dime. I think they are going to change it to make it only for retirement. I don't really object to that. Young people are eating themselves into disabling diabetes every day, so why should those of us who have paid in all our lives suffer because of it. The mentally ill get benefits, so do young children who have never worked but have some disabling condition. I think the states are in for a rude awakening.

I bet you are right, and I think it would be a darn good idea! Also Medicaid, boot all that disability business to the states. Social Security and Medicare are the old-age funds and should be preserved for that use and not keep adding stuff on.

 

[Circe]

[
We don't even need to make those changes. Raise the SS tax by 1% and the problem is solved.

This is exactly why this false crisis has been made up, primarily by the right. By making this a 'crisis' they can trim the rolls by raising the age. Those on the left want to make changes, but none of them are interested in raising the age.

Which is a silly idea when you think about it. Yes, people are living longer. But that does not mean they are in working condition longer. Only that death can be delayed longer.

It seems to me strange that people say there is a crisis as if the Baby Boom generation will be here forever, but eventually the lump moves all the way through the snake. And then presumably the country will depopulate gradually, as Europe is doing. Unless we start filling up with all the illegal aliens of the world, which may happen.

So the supposed crisis is based on a temporary situation, the population bump born from 1948 to 1964.

 

[Underhill]

For those unfamiliar with Social Security, it is a modest national social insurance program

True, the benefits are modest. The cost, 12.4% of your income, year after year, is not so modest.

That is indeed a lot of money.

I put less into my 401K and will get much much more out of that than my Social Security.

And that is how Social Security is supposed to work. You pay money in to pay for the current generation of retirees, and the next generations puts money in for you.

It was designed that way on purpose to hedge against inflation. Putting money in and getting your own investment back later causes a problem. Savings accounts would mean you wouldn't get enough back to live on.

And even if you set it up as a 401k, the whole system could get screwed if the market tanks.

That's fine for a personal 401k. You have a back up in the form of social security. But everyone knows, when the market tanks, the last thing you want to do is draw money out of a 401k. And people don't have a choice when it is their safety net. Then need that money.

It's one of the primary reasons pensions start tanking all over as soon as the market falls in a big way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is indeed a lot of money.

I put less into my 401K and will get much much more out of that than my Social Security.

And that is how Social Security is supposed to work. You pay money in to pay for the current generation of retirees, and the next generations puts money in for you.

It was designed that way on purpose to hedge against inflation. Putting money in and getting your own investment back later causes a problem. Savings accounts would mean you wouldn't get enough back to live on.

And even if you set it up as a 401k, the whole system could get screwed if the market tanks.

That's fine for a personal 401k. You have a back up in the form of social security. But everyone knows, when the market tanks, the last thing you want to do is draw money out of a 401k. And people don't have a choice when it is their safety net. Then need that money.

It's one of the primary reasons pensions start tanking all over as soon as the market falls in a big way.

And that is how Social Security is supposed to work.

I'm supposed to put in 12.4% of my income for 40 years and get a crappy return?

Who designed it, some idiot, liberal politicians?

It was designed that way on purpose to hedge against inflation.

Oh, I get crappy returns to hedge against inflation. That makes my crappy returns somehow better. LOL! Tell me more!!!

Putting money in and getting your own investment back later causes a problem.

The only problem it causes is it stops the politicans from controlling 12.4% of my income.

And even if you set it up as a 401k, the whole system could get screwed if the market tanks.

Even considering the multiple times the market has tanked since I started putting money into my private account, I will still get many times the payoff I will get for putting more of my money into Social Security.

Am I clear yet?
More dollars into Social Security will give me a fraction of what fewer dollars put into my 401K will provide.

But everyone knows, when the market tanks, the last thing you want to do is draw money out of a 401k.

I know, when the government tanks, the last thing I want is to be dependent on idiot politicians in D.C.

 

[Toro]

That is indeed a lot of money.

I put less into my 401K and will get much much more out of that than my Social Security.

And that is how Social Security is supposed to work. You pay money in to pay for the current generation of retirees, and the next generations puts money in for you.

It was designed that way on purpose to hedge against inflation. Putting money in and getting your own investment back later causes a problem. Savings accounts would mean you wouldn't get enough back to live on.

And even if you set it up as a 401k, the whole system could get screwed if the market tanks.

That's fine for a personal 401k. You have a back up in the form of social security. But everyone knows, when the market tanks, the last thing you want to do is draw money out of a 401k. And people don't have a choice when it is their safety net. Then need that money.

It's one of the primary reasons pensions start tanking all over as soon as the market falls in a big way.

It was not designed to hedge against inflation. It's not hedging against inflation now.

Of all the funds in America, SS should be at least in part invested in stocks. It doesn't matter if the stock market falls. SS is supposed to be around for centuries. The stock market ALWAYS does better than the bond market over any 40 year period, let alone a 100 or 200 year period, which is supposed to be the duration of the fund.

This argument is driven by an irrational fear of the stock market and Wall Street. It is born of ignorance, and it has literally cost SS hundreds of billions of dollars over time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Twice now Obama's flat out said that SS is broke, had a Republican said the SS checks won't go out the AARP would have handed out AK-47's to all its member and told them to march on Washington

There'd be blood in the streets had a Republican threatened to withhold SS payments

 

[PaulS1950]

The AARP is anti-gun, andthey spend money on it - your money!
The only problem that SS has is that politicians borrow from it for the national debt. They have about 4 trillion dollars of SS money tied into that debt and it will never be paid back.