The Tide Is Turning on Social Security and Budget Cuts

[JDPriestly]

I received this e-mail from my husband today with the instruction to pass it on, so I figure it is OK to post it on DU. Here goes:

Entitlements my rear-end!

I paid cash for my Social Security Insurance! Just because they borrowed my money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout! Congressional benefits like free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days: now that's welfare; and they have the nerve to call my retirement "entitlements"!

Someone please tell me what the Hell is wrong with all the people that run this country!

We're broke and can't help our Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.?

In recent months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, Pakistan...home to bin Laden...literally BILLIONS of DOLLARS!

Our retired seniors living on a fixed incomes receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government gives Hundreds of Billions to Foreign Countries!

They call Social Security and Medicare ‘entitlements’ even though most of us have been paying for them all our working lives. And now, when it’s time for us to collect, the Government is running out of money. Why did the Government borrow from our Social Security in the first place?

We have many adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without needed medication, mentally ill going without treatment, etc.

Imagine if our Government gave us the same support they give the people who hate us.

Sad, isn't it?

But 99% of people won't have the guts to forward this.

I'm part of one the 1% that Just Did!

I think the tide is turning. This e-mail makes so much sense and gives me some hope.

[Imagevision]

1. oh... the suspence is just killing me (yaaawwnn...)

[jtown1123]

2. Tide isn't turning. Majority has always supported these programs in huge numbers

Our leaders just don't listen...

[Kaleva]

3. The arguement is destroyed by trying to claim SS is the person's money.

It never was ours nor will it ever be.

[joeybee12]

5. So the money they take out of your weekly paycheck from your GROSS pay isn't

your money????

[gateley]

6. You can forgive us for believing it is, seeing as how we see

a chunk taken out of every paycheck of OUR wages.

I thought it actually was until Reagan? Clinton? started dipping into it and figuring it into their budget/balance?

[Kaleva]

19. Until recently, I too thought SS benefits was a guarantee.

In exchange for paying in to the system all our working lives, we'd get benefits upon retiring or becoming disabled. But during the recent debate hear at DU, I was shown that is not the case.

[gateley]

20. I think initially it WAS a guarantee, until greedy Washington

started fucking with it.

[Kaleva]

21. It might have been. At least till 1960 when the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

[JDPriestly]

31. Seniors paid FICA taxes believing and trusting that it was their money

Seniors will not support candidates who do not support seniors and Social Security and Medicare.

The greatest fear of every elderly person is having to be dependent on their children.

And for those who think they are secure because they have pensions, you are next. You are next. This is a campaign against older people and against poor people.

[JDPriestly]

30. Clinton and Bush II and Obama do not remember the Great Depression.

Reagan was too stupid to understand what happened during the Great Depression.

Bush I thought the Great Depression was when the poor stole from the rich. His view was perverted.

That is why these presidents did not act to really protect Social Security and Medicare.

I am old enough to remember the stories that people in my grandparents and parents told about living through the Great Depression.

If they cut Social Security and Medicare now, trust me, they will be forced to reconstitute them in even stronger form in just a couple of years.

If they cut Social Security and Medicare now, this recession will dip to a depth you cannot imagine. Think of all the people who have jobs providing services and goods to people on Social Security -- including physical therapy, hospice care, pharmaceutical products, prosthetic devices, wheel chairs, walkers, libraries. The list is very, very long. And without Social Security the demand for these services will be severely cut.

Also, church attendance and donations will drop in many areas.

You will be shocked.

And small cuts will cause elderly people to react with fear and cut their expenses even more than necessary. This will devastate our economy. Just devastate it. You have no idea.

[whathehell]

9. Say WHAT?

It sure as hell is our money!

[CleanGreenFuture]

10. They'll argue that that money is not "our" money, that it belongs to current SS recipients.

But the contract has always been believed as being a payment towards a retirement income.

[Kaleva]

17. Nope. Supreme Court ruled back in 1960 we have no right to SS benefits.

[gateley]

23. How did that come about? Who instigated this? Can you give

a little explanation - please don't make me go see my friend Google! I'm doing this on the fly. *begging on bended knee smilie goes here*

[Kaleva]

25. Here's a link to another post here in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1539321&mesg_id=1539961

[gateley]

42. Thank you!! nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. So who is it? I mean that is a nice RW taking point RIGHT THERE

[Kaleva]

18. I try to deal with facts and not hyperbole, wishful thinking and juvenile accusations

"The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right"."

"The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 608–610. (b) To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and <363 U.S. 603, 604> boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29#The_Supreme_Court_and_the_evolution_of_Social_Security

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Whatever....

[JDPriestly]

32. Put it to a vote and that Supreme Court decision will lose.

In the end, it is a political issue that will be decided by the people.

There is such a thing as an implied contract.

[JDPriestly]

15. It is ours; it is yours in the same sense that any other insurance

benefit is ours, is yours.

As long as the federal government has any money, it has to pay its Social Security debts before it pays other debts. That is the significance of the Social Security trust fund in terms of greasing the wheels of the rest of the economy.

We need import taxes, and we need them now. We are broke only because we don't have import taxes. If you don't understand what I am saying, please let me know and I will explain, but I do not want to sidetrack this post.

Simply said, however, since we stopped having import taxes (which were the way we financed our government beginning shortly after the adoption of the Constitution thanks to Alexander Hamilton's plan for America), we have financed our government with income taxes.

As we buy more and more junk from poor countries and have fewer and fewer good-paying middle class jobs and businesses, American workers earn less (figuring inflation) and pay less in taxes.

All countries that have complex infrastructures (things like running water, air pollution measurements, good sewage systems, reliable electric grids, fire departments, strong military defenses, etc.) require a lot of money to maintain that infrastructure. Virtually all of them have huge debt compared to GDP.

So, the issue is, how do we find or earn the money in our economy to keep our infrastructure going? Not, what infrastructure do we get rid of?

Our Social Security and Medicare programs are part of our infrastructure. We who are now retired and those working people will retire in the future and rely on Social Security and Medicare do own the money past and present in those programs. Your insurance company invests the premiums you pay into it each month. Their obligation to pay out remains as long as they are covering you. Social Security pays out in the event you retire and apply for benefits. That is the deal the government made with its citizens when the citizens paid the money in.

We have to keep tax revenue revenue going by keeping wages up and tax revenues high enough to cover their costs so that we can repay the money that was borrowed from the Social Security trust fund as well as other creditors.

Think of the alternative.

If you are young, could you pay what your parents receive or will receive from Social Security and Medicare if those programs were ended?

How would your parents live without those programs? (They would depend on you or some other government program.)

Where would they live? (Probably with you, unless you choose to move in with them.)

And for those of you who are young and think your parents have other pensions or enough in savings to live without Social Security -- check out how elderly people live.

Remember, other pensions are being attacked too. Every young person who thinks Social Security is too great a burden needs to talk to their parents about how the parents' financial situation. It is probably much worse than the I-Phone generation could ever imagine.

Ask your parents how much they really have in savings. (Get a number. Don't settle with "We're all right, dear.")

Most seniors are not getting much if any income from their savings right now. And their principal will dwindle quickly if Social Security is cut and Medicare coverage reduced. And guess who will pay in the end if Social Security and Medicare are cut?

[Kaleva]

27. Your initial statement isn't supported by anything else you wrote.

I agree with much of your post but it still remains a fact that we don't have a "right" to SS benefits.

[JDPriestly]

29. The money is as much ours as the money that other people

who pay the government for something, say gas leases on federal property, the right to cut timber on federal property, medical care from VA hospitals, is their right.

We paid into Social Security and Medicare based on the assurance of our government that if and when we retired, we would receive benefits that would permit us to live in dignity.

If the government reneges, it is as if it leased an area to a company for gas exploration and then, before the contract term had expired or the parties had agreed to end the contract, refused to allow the company to explore or drill on the land.

The government has to agree to keep its promises.

The government cannot just walk away with our Social Security and Medicare money. It has to pay us. If it needs more money to fulfill its obligations, then it has to raise the money by increasing the cap on the taxes. And that is precisely what Obama said he would do.

Why hasn't he been talking about that proposal? It should be filling the news. But he is silent.

I will not vote for any member of Congress who votes for the Gang Of Six plan or for cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Democrats are pulling the rug out from under their own chances for re-election if they go along with this.

Republicans will raise the debt ceiling regardless of what Democrats do or don't do.

[Kaleva]

44. The govt. can just walk away with our SS and Medicare money

"We paid into Social Security and Medicare based on the assurance of our government that if and when we retired, we would receive benefits that would permit us to live in dignity."

Who gave you that assurance and do you have it in writing? The Supreme Court ruled over 50 years ago we don't have any rights to SS benefits.

[JDPriestly]

46. I got my Social Security card when I was 14. Eisenhower

was president.

Dwight Eisenhower was the principal force behind the greatest single expansion of Social Security beneficiaries in the history of the program. He led the legislative drive to add over ten million Americans to the system. Here’s how it developed.

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/social-security.htm


Document #1147; November 8, 1954
To Edgar Newton Eisenhower

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm

So this is the source of the famous Eisenhower quote which assured subsequent generations that they could trust their money to Social Security.

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Of course, the stupid found away to convince other stupid people that Social Security was a bad idea. But they are still a tiny minority, and Obama would be wise to ignore them

[CleanGreenFuture]

4. See how that Orwellian Newspeak works? Changing the definition of

"entitlements" is a patented example. Many now have disregarded the true meaning of the word and it has been made to be something that is negative, instead of the exact opposite.

[gateley]

7. Entitlement = freebie. That's how they make it sound. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. +1 n/t

[Amonester]

11. bu$h/cheney raided the SS trust fund for their profitable invasion of Iraq

why Rn't cheney "the deficit is not important"/bu$h forced to return what they stole?

[gateley]

22. And didn't Clinton use the funds somehow to balance the budget? And

I think Reagan was fiddling with it too.

I'm sure whatever transpired earlier, Bush/Cheney took it to a whole new level.

[JDPriestly]

34. Yes. People have difficulty understanding what happened.

The "private contractors" were friends of Bush -- think Blackwater in its various disguises and names.

The Social Security money was borrowed and then allocated to pay for the Iraq War was channeled into the accounts of the private contractors who were friends of the Bush's.

The whole thing was a horrific, deadly scam.

Halliburton, Blackwater and so many other contractors were paid with our Social Security and Medicare FICA tax money as well as other tax revenue.

Meanwhile the rich got big, big tax cuts.

How many times do we have to explain this scam?

It happened and the thieves are enjoying their lives.

[Amonester]

43. I don't know, JD. I see many posts here asking

where the money is (so to speak).

Just wanted to remind everybody WHO stole it, and for WHAT.

[bvar22]

13. The Leadership of BOTH Parties already KNOW this.

They don't care,
because,
Who ya going to vote for?
A Republican?
Hahahahahahaha!

Checkmate!

[JDPriestly]

36. A lot of people will just stay home -- especially seniors

many of whom are Democrats.

[Butch350]

41. Yeah, I'll vote republican...

At least I'll know where the punch is coming from - while from the DEMs you'll never know when
your gonna get sucker punched!

[movonne]

14. This is a good article and it should be the headlines in every newspaper...

[The Magistrate]

16. A Good Letter, Sir

What is going on today in Washington is quite simple. The governing elite, whether in office or in the board-room, wants to welsh on its markers. It is getting to the point where the Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund will need to be redeemed in cash. To do so, there will need to be either some reduction in spending on other items, or some increase in taxes. Neither politicians nor those who purchase politicians in wholesale lots want to do either thing. What they do want to do is continue to use the regressive pay-roll tax as a principal source of general revenue, as they have in effect been doing with the amounts collected by this levy in excess of immediate pay-outs for many decades. The F.I.C.A. tax already amounts to over a third of taxes collected against income by the Federal government. Keep the F.I.C.A. rates going up, as rates on income and capital gains are cut further for the wealthy, and as benefits for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are reduced, and this proportion will only increase. The aim is to produce a Federal tax system sufficiently regressive as to shock even a medieval cleric.

[JDPriestly]

38. The Magistrate. You are so right, but people cannot understand the math.

"Keep the F.I.C.A. rates going up, as rates on income and capital gains are cut further for the wealthy, and as benefits for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are reduced, and this proportion will only increase. The aim is to produce a Federal tax system sufficiently regressive as to shock even a medieval cleric."

That is precisely the point.

I wonder what Obama's math scores were on the SAT. Good heavens.

Has he really though about the financial effect of cutting Social Security and Medicare on our economy?

Has he thought about the predicament in which he will place nursing homes, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, cities and states, the entire economy if he does this?

We will soon have 15-20% official unemployment if he continues to scare older people this way. It's not the cuts themselves. It's frightening elderly people. How stupid can you get?

[JDPriestly]

39. I did not write the letter, The Magistrate.

It is one of those chain e-mails. But I like it.

[B Calm]

24. Copy /pasted this and sent it to all my e-mail contacts!

hope you don't mind

[JDPriestly]

35. I did not write it. The e-mail suggested sending it on.

[B Calm]

37. I had to add a few more things, like tax cuts to the rich, subsidies to oil co's etc

[JDPriestly]

40. Good.

[ellenfl]

28. kick for later. eom

[annabanana]

33. kickerino. . . .n/t

[donheld]

45. 100% K & R