Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I told my son this afternoon, "you will never receive Social Security"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:29 PM
Original message
I told my son this afternoon, "you will never receive Social Security"
In anticipation of today's vote in the Senate I told my son, this afternoon, that there wasn't much chance he would ever receive Social Security in his life. He knew it, or at least he's believed it, for a long time. Today was the first day I honestly considered it to be likely.

I told him why too, and in want to repeat it now - just so everyone understands what at least one part of this very very bad tax cut deal means to the Social Security System. Many of you already understand what I'm about to say, and probably understand it better than I do to tell the truth. Please chime in with any corrections or to fix anything I've misrepresented, because I don't want to get this wrong.

I told my son, in case he didn't know it, that he paid in a little over 7% of his salary (wages and estimated tips in his case) and his employer pays in a matching amount and those contributions constitute his Social Security account. We both know that current workers pay for current retirees, but when they determine each individual's amount due its based on their earnings record and so both accounts are true.

Now, for a year, the Republicans want the contribution reduced by 2%, and that will be instantly felt and go to those who need it a lot. What could be wrong with that -other that it makes worse the problematic funding of the SSS in the out years that everyone is already complaining about and demanding a solution for. Think about it, everyone says Social Security is going broke and the solution is to reduce the pay-in to Social Security by 2% for every working individual. How backwards assed a solution could possibly be conceived?

But that is not the worst of it. Recognizing that this will cause a short-fall in SSS pay-ins the Republicans want the amount repaid out of General Funds. Either way the taxpayer pays. So although its convoluted one has to say, well, what's so bad about that? The problem is this. First of all if the SSS contribution is lowered while Democrats still hold power it will never - repeat - never be raised backup by the Republican Congress to follow - and means the death of Social Security is hastened considerably unless money comes from General Fund to save it - and that, my good ladies and gentlemen, turns Social Security into a Welfare Program. The moment it becomes a welfare program the Republicans will go after it like a rat after cheese.

And there is this too. Why in all of the fires of hell would the Democrats pass this now? Two weeks from now the Republicans will be in charge and they can concoct and pass any shitty legislation they want and they can back date it and send refunds to millionaires too if they want. There is no reason at all for Democrats to pass this trash, but they will. And two years from now, when the truth will mean even less than it does now, one thing will be heard at every campaign event - Republicans will say quite truthfully that it was not they, a Republican Congress, that continued the Bush Tax Cuts that killed the economy, it was the Democrats.

What on earth is wrong with us. We kill the best program in Government and concurrently shoot ourselves in the foot for the next election. How much longer can I continue to call myself a Democrat with this sort of foolishness going on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Don 't do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. Probably rhetorical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
36. +100.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm in my early 50's, but I never expected to receive, it really...
Growing up in the 60's, I never quite imagined things would still be "holding together" when I was old enough to theoretically collect it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redirish28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. I know that was the hardest thing you probably had to tell him-one of the hardest.
My wife and I are resigned to the same fact that we ourselves will not receive social security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. My sons and I had this same conversation. Who ever would have
thought this would happen under Obama? Very sad..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. That's what Republicans were saying 40 years ago.
Wasn't true then, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. That is called seed planting.
The seed was planted and now the first step is in motion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. The GOP has wanted to take down Social Security since its inception.
We went through a few decades where it was untouchable, but the past ten years has been a constant assault. Ordinarily, the push would have been repelled with a Democratic president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. 40 yrs ago the country had a manufacturing base....
that is paying for my social security. what base is my children going to draw from? we should be increasing social security tax instead of cutting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. It was a bogus meme 40 years ago, and it's bogus now.
Yes, our manufacturing has diminished, and I don't like that, but it doesn't make Social Security insolvent and it doesn't eliminate Social Security for the future generations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. Stop! You're making sense!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. If that's the case someone owes us all a shitload of money...
..I've been paying in my whole life...there had bloody well better be something there when it comes time for me to collect..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. word
I've been paying in for 30 years already, there better be something to collect when it's time for me to retire or I want my money back, all of it. I'll be a pissed off old man with nothing left to lose at that point... :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. If it was going to be killed, it was going to be from Democrats
or with their consent. It has finally come due to both political calculation and by the corporate foot in the door through the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reformist2 Donating Member (998 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. It's way too early to give up - the Repugs would love that.

Democrats can hold Obama's feet to the fire for the next two years. After 2012, if Dems regain congress, hopefully then we can insist on fully funding Social Security again. It's going to be a long road ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
10. I don't think it's too controversial a thing to say the with the Citizens United ruling, it has...
...become apparent that about 2/3 of the Democratic party have left to court & please those money sources. And they aren't coming back to us. It doesn't work like that. The whole Democratic party is being shaken up. In 2016 you won't recognize the Democratic contender's position as anything remotely democratic, except the certainty that they'll be pro-choice. That's going to be about it though.

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. ... and denying young people steady work over the last two decades means neither
will they have private pensions -- !!

Keep in mind also the many women who earned money towards pensions but

never worked long enough to be invested in the pension plans --

They may have worked 30-40 years over their lifetimes, but because of

interrruptions of marriage/children many women earned nothing in the

way of private pensions. And, many of these women worked at only 50%

of the salary males received and still now only 76% of what males receive.

And now attacks on Social Security will further impoverish women.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. Sorry I think this "KILLING OF SOCIAL SECURITY" thing is overblown
It is a ONE year tax holiday. After a year it is over. It doesn't affect SS revenues.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. well that would be right in the real world but...
do you trust anyone to actually "raise" the social security tax in one year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Why not? Reagan raised the rate back in 1983, and he was an R.
Seriously, people around here don't have a clue as to how the SSTF works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. it is weird
Everyone seems to have latched on to this doomsday scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. 120 B I L L I O N DOLLARS! Of course it affects social security revenues.
There have been many, many simply stated, detailed explanations presented on DU and elsewhere explaining the dangers of this action. Here's one more for you.

http://www.truth-out.org/what-bernie-said-part-i65944

"Even though Social Security contributed nothing to the current
economic crisis, it has been bartered in a deal that provides
deficit-busting tax cuts for the wealthy. Diverting $120 billion in
Social Security contributions for a so-called "tax holiday'' may sound
like a good deal for workers now, but it's bad business for the program
that a majority of middle-class seniors will rely upon in the future.

While this idea of lowering the payroll tax sounds like a good
idea, in truth, it really is not a good idea. This idea originated from
very conservative Republicans whose intention from the beginning was to
destroy Social Security by choking off the funds that go to it. This is
not just Bernie Sanders' analysis. There was recently - I distributed it
recently at a meeting we held - a news release that came from the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. The
headline on that press release is "Cutting Contributions to Social
Security Signals the Beginning of the End. Payroll Tax Holiday is
Anything But.'' What the National Committee to Preserve Social Security
and Medicare, which is one of the largest senior groups in America, well
understands is that there are people out there who want to destroy
Social Security. And one way to do that is to divert funds into the
Social Security trust fund and they don't get there."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
27. just like the Bush tax cuts ..... oh ...... wait a minute. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. Just like the Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire this year.
Funny how that works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #12
34. Two years, hon.
And a co-mingling of the SS lockbox and the general fund.

Geez... READ!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. Not the way to approach it. Instead, we have to make sure that the third rail works.
Anyone who voted for this attack on Social Security must lose the next election. It's time to rouse the nation's elders and the rest of the population -- the nation's future elders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
15. That's freaking mean, and very likely not true. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
19. Hysteria founded on ????
Edited on Wed Dec-15-10 05:54 PM by stopbush
You haven't a clue as to what it all means.

You write: "the Republicans want the contribution reduced by 2%, and that will be instantly felt and go to those who need it a lot. What could be wrong with that -other that it makes worse the problematic funding of the SSS in the out years that everyone is already complaining about and demanding a solution for."

Excuse me, but the contributions made this year have nothing to do with benefits paid out this year. Let's make that clear because your phrasing is a bit obtuse.

SS currently runs a surplus. That surplus gets transferred to the general fund. Even with a 2% cut in contributions by wage earners to the fund for all of 2011, SS will STILL run a surplus and will STILL pay FULL BENEFITS to everyone receiving those benefits in 2011. You're getting worked up because SS will run LESS of a surplus next year than it would have. You do know, don't you, that there was a time when the SS surplus was next to nothing.

The $112-b that the general fund will "lend" to SS in 2012 to close the gap created by the 2% holiday is actually $ the general fund already owes the SSTF.

There's close to $2.5-trillion in the SSTF right now, sitting there as US-back securities earning interest. $112-b represents 4% of that $2.5-trillion. That shortfall is covered by the interest the SSTF makes in a year.

BTW - one horrible fact that no one seems to take into account is the effect of stagnant wages on payouts from SS. After all, your SS benefit $ is based on your career earnings. A person who made $150,000 a year has a higher benefit than someone who earned $40,000 a year. Stagnant wages mean that fewer people qualify for the higher end SS benefits. It's a terrible Catch 22 - you make less in your working years, so you get less in SS when you retire. The "upside" is that SS payouts are reduced, and that has the effect of stretching the trust fund for a longer period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpibel Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #19
38. Who's clueless?
You say: "Excuse me, but the contributions made this year have nothing to do with benefits paid out this year."

Other than funding the benefits paid out this year, nothing. Check it out: The current revenues go out to pay the current benefits. Any surplus (which, for this year, there is none) goes into the trust fund. Else why would there be all the scaremongering about the future ratio of workers to retirees?

Then you go and say: "That surplus gets transferred to the general fund."

Well, no it doesn't. It gets paid into the trust fund. That is why there's a $2.6 trillion trust fund.

After that, you say: "Even with a 2% cut in contributions by wage earners to the fund for all of 2011, SS will STILL run a surplus and will STILL pay FULL BENEFITS to everyone receiving those benefits in 2011."

Apparently, you're not aware that SS did not run a surplus this year. So how you are so dead cert it will run one next year quite escapes me. Sure, it will pay FULL BENEFITS in 2011. But it may have to do what it had to do this year, and draw on the trust fund to pay them.

Following that, you inexplicably proclaim that: "The $112-b that the general fund will "lend" to SS in 2012 to close the gap created by the 2% holiday is actually $ the general fund already owes the SSTF."

As much as I'd like to, and as hard as I try, I can't make a lick of sense out of that statement. You apparently are conflating the fact that the SS trust fund is comprised of special US Treasuries, and this 2 percent reimbursement somehow, in your mind only, constitutes a repurchase of those treasuries. But if that is, indeed, what you are seeking to say, you are perfectly wrong. It's just a straight payment from the general fund into the SS fund to make up for a shortfall created by nothing but the "tax holiday."

Then you make this self-conflicted claim: "There's close to $2.5-trillion in the SSTF right now, sitting there as US-back securities earning interest. $112-b represents 4% of that $2.5-trillion. That shortfall is covered by the interest the SSTF makes in a year."

I'd be in favor of you explaining why, since the money is already owed by the general fund to the SSTF, it makes a whit of difference what interest is made.

All in all, you appear to have a huge amount of pontification to do that has little, if any, basis in the real world. It's particularly amusing that you keep talking about how other people just don't get it. I realize that we live in a world where volume and certainty count for a lot in an argument. But, in this case, you're so clearly full of hot air that you ought take the volume down a notch and spend a little bit of time attempting to be internally consistent as you make up your rabid fictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zen Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
23. My dad never thought he'd get it. He's been receiving it for 25 years. now.
He'll be 91 in a couple of weeks. I remember when I was little listening to him talk with my uncle and they were SURE and CERTAIN they'd never see a penny of social security money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snotcicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
24. As of 12/2009 I and my employers contributed $142,966.00 on my behalf to Social Security.
I only hope I live long enough to get it back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
25. it's sad--i tell myself that every year-so i am prepared
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
29. Pretty sure the Republicans aren't going to be claiming "tax cuts killed the economy."
You'll understand if I give the rest of your reheated prognostication a pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
32. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. How awful of you to suggest the poster lie to his/her children.
A lie is far worse than just leveling with them.

I feel sorry for you and your children that you still believe in the fairy tale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
33. Big Corp can play hardball... so can I.
Now, I realize my piddly 2 percent isn't going to amount for much, but I'm used to not having it, so it's going to go into savings. It will NOT be spent on Big Corp wares.

MY savings.

NOT a 401K.

Mine. Period. Not their crap. I will NOT fund a job on my $50, but they can and won't, so I won't either. I have a wood-burning fireplace, a minor appetite and no need for clothing.

And that may mean a canning jar by mid-year instead of THEIR banks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
37. I still remember my Republican brother saying,
"Nobody takes away my social security." He was answering my question of, "How can you be a Republican when they want to get rid of Social Security?"

Looks like Democrats made ME look stupid.:(

They stand for nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liquorice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
39. I have little doubt that Social Security will be there for your son. nt
Edited on Thu Dec-16-10 01:39 AM by Liquorice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
40. Both of my kids got jobs with pension
From their work...and both trying to save..but it's hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC