On Grinchspan's desire to loot Social Security

[Gringo]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040225/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan_budget_9

Greenspan says he thinks the government should break its 70+ year covenant with working Americans by slashing social security benefits in light of balooning deficits (caused by Bush tax cuts & fiscal irresponsibility)

What would be an acceptable solution to you for the twin problems of the deficits, and the declining numbers of workers paying into the SS trust fund?

Personally, I think the money should be ripped from Greenspan's hide. It would be possible to slice, dry and print his carcass as currency, wouldn't it?

[Demeter]

1. Loot Greenspan

The man needs a chance to walk a few years in somebody else's shoes.

[Gringo]

2. It should be noted

That the government has been borrowing from the Social Security surplus for decades. There should be NO talk about cutting benefits or raising retirement ages until that debt has been repaid and exhausted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they have "borrowed" about $4 trillion.

3. retire Greenspan

and Bush

[1971]

4. Let's see how this plays out...

Does Greenspan play chess?
(I'd bet that Bush doesn't.)

Greenspan has done us a BIG favor!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=383832&mesg_id=384722&page=

[Suziq]

5. I, personally

have worked over thirty years and have contributed big time to this TRUST FUND. Social security is not a government giveaway!

It's the tax cuts to the rich which needs to be rolled back.

:grr:

[shivaji]

7. I have paid in $165,000 to social security taxes so far............

and expect to get about $17,000 per year in a year and half
upon reaching retirement age. If my money was invested in
the biggest 500 US corporations for all these years, I could
get a lifelong annuity of $72,000 per year.

[NoMoreRedInk]

13. You're right. It's not an attractive investment from

a financial standpoint. It's a social investment. Something you should feel good about. You're paying for peoples' retirements who wouldn't have had a retirement if it wasn't for you.

Thanks!

[Gringo]

16. Or it could be wiped out in a stock market crash

It is not an investment. It is an insurance plan.

[NoMoreRedInk]

12. Sorry, there is no SS "trust fund". Never has been.

the money you paid in was gone before you got home from the bank where you deposited your paycheck.

[shivaji]

6. What looting? There is no treasure trove of SS trust fund....

it is a pay as you go system. They have already spent all
the social security tax collected. A PONZI scheme by
any other name.

[Gringo]

17. That is BS

Social Security has operated with a significant surplus for many years. That surplus has been used to finance the government's other operations. That is a matter of fact.

Calling it a "ponzi scheme" is a standard RW talking point, and completely fallacious.

"An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones."

The false assumption here is that SS is an investment. It is an insurance plan, not an investment. No high profits are promised. Present beneficiaries are paid with SS taxes from today's workers - that is also how other insurance plans work.

Social Security is the cornerstone of the New Deal, and one of the most fundamental ideas the democratic party has always stood for. I'm no ideological purist, but I fail to understand how one can be so hostile to the very idea of SS and still call himself a democrat.

"ponzi scheme" also conjures images of "pyramid schemes" which SS most certainly is not.


If you want to invest, invest. Millions of people can't afford to save a penny, much less invest anything. That's why they are FORCED to set aside a SMALL amount for the future. The returns may not be spectacular, but they were always SECURE (until people like Greenspan decided to change that)

[smirkymonkey]

8. In addition to the above, I would cap

SS benefits paid out to individuals who have a very high net worth - don't know what the number would be, but I am sure some actuary could figure it out.

[JHB]

20. I would'nt cap it

As absurd as it seem when you hear about some rich guy getting some large amount from SS, I don't think they're THAT large a part of the population, and it's better to maintain a principle of "everyone chps in, everyone gets out" rather than "gating out" some people.

[boobooday]

9. They've all gone mental

The solution is to cut the defense budget, and stop invading countries! Also banning the corporate looters from taking our money and our jobs offshore.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[DinahMoeHum]

10. Not a good idea to piss off the baby boomers, Alan. . .

especially those who will need that SS money in a few years.


:kick:

[union_maid]

11. I have such mixed feelings about Greenspan's statement

As a babyboomer who:

A. Has a lot less in the 401K than a few years ago, and even then it wasn't enough.

B. Has a husband who was the main breadwinner whose job was outsourced to India. He got a new job..at a little more than half what he was making.

C. Above referenced husband has had some serious health problems and he'll be very, very fortunate to work until he's 65, let alone older.

all this makes me a bit nervous. OTOH, as an American and a Democrat, it tells me that the election is now all about pocketbook issues and the Bush administration has nothing to offer and no credibility unless your pocketbook runneth over already. So in that way, it makes me pretty happy.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. It is an OUTRAGE that Greenspan and Bush think anyone

will buy this! We baby boomers are nearing retirement and we want our Social Security retirement benefits to be there -- NO reductions, NO more
raising of retirement age.

Democrats MUST promise to tax corporations and the very rich more, increase estate taxes, and stop the military adventurism begun by Bush.

Balancing the budget on the backs of the elderly and the disabled is grossly unfair.



VOTE FOR DENNIS KUCINICH -- HE SUPPORTS FULLY FUNDING SOCIAL SECURITY AND RETURNING THE RETIREMENT AGE TO 65.

[napi21]

15. Repeal tax cuts, and.......

deal with the outsourcing the same way the Feds dealt witht he states when they pushed their "speed limit" plan through. The states were told "You get no Federal funds if you don't comply!"

The same thing could be done with businesses. You are not eligible for any tax breaks....at all...if you outsource any jobs. It's not right to put additional taxes on these companies, but the result would be the same if they weren't eligible for those loop holes that have been written into the tax code all these years.

The same thing should apply to those companies who re-locate their "corporate home" to the Cayman Islands etc.

Take the advantages away, and the problems would be solved.

[Gringo]

18. I'm amazed that even at DU...

There is so much more discussion about Mel Gibson's irrelevant film than there is about something that can actually affect us all. Just shows we're not immune to the corporate media's influence.

[htuttle]

19. Immune? Nope -- we're certainly not.

"I think we're all bozos on this bus."