Originally Posted by Sonny
Social Security remains the biggest Republican target but they are still afraid to touch, but they keep up the steady stream of propaganda, in the hopes that more people will come to believe the lies, and let them get away with stealing our retirement. Also, remember Social Security has never added a penny to the deficit, so controlling “government spending” has nothing to do with this.
Could you explain the "stealing our retirement" phrase?
It is not social security that is going bankrupt. It is medicare. Kindly separate the two. If you want to know the truth go back to when it was passed, determine what assumptions were made and what the intentions of those who passed it were, and judge the outcome.
Note the comment on the bottom from house hearings in 1965 LOL
The incrementalism that had characterized the previous 30 years of Medicare's evolution also was written into the bill's financing provisions. Payroll-tax increases extending to 1987 were specified in the bill, thereby lowering the apparent present cost to workers of the health insurance provisions. The planned pay-as-you-go financing, disguised by the bogus Medicare "trust fund," further concealed the full cost of the proposed program. [15] But chief among the incremental financing strategies was the intention, partly written into the bill, to gradually increase the wage base to which payroll taxes would apply and thereby increase payroll tax revenues to finance Medicare while avoiding politically difficult increases in payroll tax rates. Even congressmen sometimes had to dig to get the truth from administration witnesses on this topic. HEW's Robert Myers testified in 1964 that "the financing provided in the bill ... will be sufficient to finance the proposal for all time to come," avowing that "the income in the early years is estimated to be more than sufficient so as to make up for the fact that later on the benefits will rise as there become relatively more and more beneficiaries" (U.S. House Hearings 1963-64: 58). He later admitted under questioning his underlying assumption that the "earnings base" would have to rise (via legislation) in the future to make his cost estimates valid, implying that without such increases in the earnings base for Medicare his cost estimates would greatly understate the true costs (U.S. House Hearings 1963-64: 141-46). Accordingly, planned increases in the wage base were written into the 1965 bill. Noting that the "rate of tax and the wage base is [sic], however, escalated in subsequent years," the minority report on the 1965 House bill concluded that "this 'gimmick' merely postpones the full impact of the cost" and causes Medicare's "real burden" to be "shifted to the future" (U.S. House Rept. 213, 1965: 249)
Then knew in 1965 that the real costs would be shifted to the future and stated it openly on the House floor. The TRUTH was stated and recorded by some clerk by the social democrats that were setting up LBJ's "great society". NOW: Welcome to the future.
PS: You never had a "retirement" to steal. It was set up in 1965 when medicare was added to be a pay-as-you-go system. Me? 1965 congressmen did not have the right to set up tax increases for future voters. If you think that is taxation with representation you are numb. Thats the problem with democrats. They pass tax increases decades in advance. LOL
Last edited by Walks_in_islam; 05-16-2011 at 09:24 PM.
The stock market has NEVER posted a net loss over any 10 year period. It goes up and down, but if you rid eit out there has never been a ten year loss.
The only reason SS would be more "safe" is because the Fed will just either A) borrow more money from foreign countries or B) turn on the preinting presses and produce more paper money. Both of which feed higher debt and inflation.
Social Security remains the biggest Republican target but they are still afraid to touch, but they keep up the steady stream of propaganda, in the hopes that more people will come to believe the lies, and let them get away with stealing our retirement. Also, remember Social Security has never added a penny to the deficit, so controlling “government spending” has nothing to do with this.
Social Security is far more than a tax. After 75 years in existence, the program “remains one of the nation’s most successful, effective, and popular programs.” It has dramatically reduced elderly poverty — nearly half of seniors today would be in poverty without it — and it is the nation’s most effective tool at alleviating poverty among people with disabilities. It does all this while spending less than a penny per dollar on administrative costs. And despite conservatives’ fear mongering, Social Security is not going bankrupt any time soon, and will not at all if it is not privatized by the Republicans.
Excellent post sonny Social security is the last big apple Wall Street wants to get their hands on. Like public educations they will criticize it and make it look broken so it can be underfunded until it is broken. All so the those "shrewd" investors on Wall Street can use our money "wisely".
Take out social security which is separate any way and 52% of the federal budget is going to "defense".
Excellent post sonny Social security is the last big apple Wall Street wants to get their hands on. Like public educations they will criticize it and make it look broken so it can be underfunded until it is broken. All so the those "shrewd" investors on Wall Street can use our money "wisely".
Take out social security which is separate any way and 52% of the federal budget is going to "defense".
Now that is silly....to say that Wall Street makes public education look broken.
It IS broken. It's broken for many reasons, but Wall Street criticizing it isn't the culprit.
Linear Mode
