Dear friends,
The article on the link here
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/your-money/31money.html?_r=1
makes atrocious claims, regarding the current health of our Social Security system, and, therefore, shows how the mainstream media colludes with the body of marauders that calls itself the US Congress, a group that almost unanimously strives to hoodwink us and rob the public coffers.
Yet, have no fear, below, the copy of an e-mail newsletter that was recently sent to me by MoveOn.org gives a scholarly and honest take on this issue. By the way, I encourage you to sign on to the MoveOn.org Website, if you're not already a member. They are for real.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
******************************************
From MoveOn.org :
5 Myths about Social Security
Myth: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.1
Sources: 1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security" Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009http://www.eoionline.org/retirement_security/fact_sheets/StraightFactsSocialSecurity-Sep09.pdf3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement"Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/4. "More on raising the retirement age" Ezra Klein, Washington Post, July 8, 2010http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/more_on_raising_the_retirement.html5. "Social Security is sustainable" Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010 http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/social_security_is_sustainable/6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010." Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2407. "Trust Fund FAQs" Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html8. "To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/
2 comments:
All of the evidence presented showing viability of SS is great, but not disseminated widely. The common belief is the program is in serious trouble.
One good thing about the negative points of views is that it makes people less likely to depend solely on SS for retirement. Folks, especially youngsters, will prepare more and have a better retirement plan added to SS.
The comment that "high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income" is appalling. The wealthy should pay more toward SS. Also, SS and Medicare should be needs based. It makes no sense for wealthy to receive benefits they do not need just because they've reached a certain age.
We're in total agreement. However, the real issue is: they're stealing from the coffers via SS, while, simultaneously saying that it's going broke. Ain't that a killer?
Post a Comment