Social Security cuts "would weaken popular confidence that the program will be there for retirees."

[Better Believe It]

Who Pays to Save Social Security? Us or Them?
Jane Slaughter | August 25, 2010

Social Security is quite healthy now—but it will need more cash eventually. Who should pony up? The vast majority of working Americans, suddenly forced to work through what they’d been promised would be their golden years? Or the biggest earners, the top 6 percent?

If we let Congress choose to gouge workers, we can be sure that everything else will be up for grabs as well. Social Security until very recently was called the “third rail” of U.S. politics—no politician dared touch it. If they find out they can take away grandma and grandpa’s hard-earned nest egg, both politicians and employers will be emboldened to test what else they can steal.

The fervor to cut is “not a partisan issue,” says Laura Markhardt of the Alliance of Retired Americans (ARA), an AFL-CIO affiliate. “Many, many Democrats are saying, this is one of our options.”

“They say, if you wait longer, the problem becomes harder to solve,” explains Maya Rockeymoore of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “They say it’s best to do it when you have friends in the White House and in Congress.”

Clearly, those who want a secure retirement can’t count on these friends (who don’t seem to read the polls showing their constituents don’t want cuts) this time around. The question is how hard the groups—including unions—who toiled for the Democrats in 2008 will fight the commission’s proposals.

Mark Dudzic of the Labor Campaign for Single Payer believes “if we can make this an issue in the election campaign between now and November we can defeat a giveback. All these forces are conspiring to make this an inside deal that happens after the election. We can shine the sun on it.”

Dudzic points out that cuts to Social Security also “open the door to privatization,” putting workers’ accounts in the hands of Wall Street, because cuts would weaken popular confidence that the program will be there for retirees. “It plants the idea that Social Security can’t guarantee you can retire—you need to take care of yourself,” he said.

Read the full article at:

http://www.labornotes.org/2010/08/who-pays-save-social-security-us-or-them

[dkf]

1. Does anybody believe that social security does guarantee you can retire?

And that you don't have to save for yourself?

Wow I think that is crazy.

[phantom power]

3. Most people I know view it as a supplement, or won't count on it at all.

I would like to be able to argue that people's mistrust in SS is mis-guided, but since the Dems are essentially refusing to stand up for SS, I can't in good conscience argue the point.

:(

[enlightenment]

4. Where does it say that?

No where in that article does it even imply that workers believe SS is all they need.

Your comment is extremely disingenuous and designed to deflect criticism away from this piss-poor idea by suggesting that no one has a right to assume that because they paid into the system for 35-40 years it should be available to them when they retire.

Shame on you.

[dkf]

8. Last paragraph of the post. I almost choked when I read it.

"Dudzic points out that cuts to Social Security also “open the door to privatization,” putting workers’ accounts in the hands of Wall Street, because cuts would weaken popular confidence that the program will be there for retirees. “It plants the idea that Social Security can’t guarantee you can retire—you need to take care of yourself,” he said."

[Better Believe It]

5. Ending Social Security guarantees you will work (if you can find a job) until you die.

Unless you're rich.

Are most working people now putting away hundreds of thousands of dollars for their retirement? Is everyone still working full time with a good living wage so you can save enough money to live a comfortable retirement without collecting Social Security? And for those that have, how are those 401K retirement funds and those stock market investments doing? Ya making tons of money for your retirement?

Sounds like you're still making a nice living and can continue to save enough money to cover your retirement without collecting a penny in Social Security. Is that your personal situation?

If so, good for you. But what about the tens of millions of us who aren't rich?

[gratuitous]

6. What does it meant "guarantee you can retire"?

Social Security as one leg of the three-legged stool (the sturdiest one, as it turns out) that financial advisers advocate for folks contemplating retirement does indeed provide a measure of confidence that one can retire, in coordination with personal savings and deferred compensation, such as a pension.

Since Social Security is already fully funded for the next 25 years (as opposed to any other government program that could be named *cough*defense*cough), it seems mickle strange to me that a commission to reduce the budget deficit would be looking so hard at it as a means of helping to balance the budget. The alternative - raising taxes on Paris Hilton - is apparently too horrible to contemplate for the commission and its chairman Alan Simpson.

[Democrats_win]

2. It's the China syndrome: Only Nixon can go to China, Only Obama can wreck S.S.

Fraud Street saw that silver-spoon-in-their-mouths Bushites could not change Social Security so they're banking on Obama. Since most American's are poor, Social Security is the only thing left for Fraud Street to steal. It's not the first time Democrats have betrayed the people. Remember Carter deregulating the trucking industry? A lot of hard-working truckers lost their jobs. The teamsters endorsed Reagan and Carter became a one-term-president. There is basically a 100% chance that Obama will not win a second term. Hopefully he'll be smart enough not to run.

[suston96]

7. Cuts are not needed. What are needed are: JOBS.....JOBS.....JOBS.

Social Security, Medicare, Disability Insurance Trust Funds receive their income from the work-force and their employers.

Unfortunately, all that cash goes into and is mixed up with the cash in the Treasury checking account. The same Treasury checking account that pays ALL the US bills, including payouts to Social Security recipients, and Medicare providers.

Congress and the media then blame Social Security and Medicare as being the main drain on the Treasury. That just ain't so.

Go here: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

That's a short explanation of this deception regarding Social Security and Medicare burdening the taxpayers. It is just that: a mass deception! Plain bullshit!

What this deception covers up is the negligence by the President and Congress to replace the missing JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! ---- NOW! NOW! NOW! Jobs that will expand the funding of Social Security and Medicare and indeed, the rest of the Treasury check book payouts.

[boston bean]

9. the plan is to weaken confidence so they can convince people their money is better off in the stock

market

[old mark]

10. I just started Social Security less than a year ago, at minimum age 62.

I certainly don't get a lot per month, but it is steady and I planned to get it and it worked out well for me.
I started working at age 14 after school, by age 15 had a job, played in a band at dances and went to high school full time. I usually took factory jobs or construction, later learning drafting, and still later went to college for social work, sociology and (gasp) fine art. I also worked in various area bands off and on for about 20 years. I feel I earned my few dollars - I certainly paid into the fund all my life, and I appologise to no one for being on it.

I have also been lifelong Democratic voter since the late 1960's, but if they actually do cut social security, that will stop and I will leave politics to all you younger people with stronger stomachs and more self control.

There are only so many times I can email the President to go fuck himself without being placed on some sort of list.

mark