Press Release from Idaho Democratic Party: Social Security celebrates its 73 Birthday on Thursday!

Okay, here goes with the weirdo comment.

I am a registered Democrat. I like having Democratic Party stuff publicized all over the place! Cool!

But this isn’t a partisan website, is it? So where are the Republican press releases? Where are the Libertarian press releases?

Are you getting other political party press releases, Joe E ?

And if not, why not? I’m just curious…

What do I think?

Ummm…let them eat cake?

Ah, Gawd help me but I couldn’t resist that one!

And now for something completely different…

Bundy, you make some great points. I wish I knew how to fix the system but every time something gets messed with every pol out there wants to put in his or her favorite pick of the pig and pretty soon the ’salvation’ bill becomes pork pie all over again with no real answers.

I’m sorry to disagree with you about privatization but you are probably a savvy individual who would know how to do your savings, as opposed to those who might opt out but never actually make the savings, and then end up on the public welfare rolls as indigent. Then we’re stuck again. I guess if you could put your money into one of two or three pots (ONLY) and not into your pocket, a forced kind of savings, I could see that.

But we”ve privatized the war (Blackwater) and we’ve privatized medicine (only affordable for the rich) and even though government sucks, sometimes it does the best job without competition.

imo, humbly offered (okay, y’all know I’m not humble but I do like to pretend, once in awhile…)

Nemesis,

Good question. This is not a partisan website and I’m glad there are people who help keep that in check. I’ve received at least five such announcements from the democratic party so far and have posted two of them. These are completely unsolicited and while promotional, brought up interesting fundamental topics I thought worthy of discussion. The core topic might be a few layers deep, but as you and others have recognized in this post (Social Security) it’s there.

To date I have received nothing from other political parties. Since this website will remain non-partisan, I will not solicit things from other political parties either. When only one party submits things though, their chances of getting something posted are obviously going to be higher just as any individual who submits something. If anyone else wants to nudge the other parties to get their own message heard here, feel free.

A couple notes on this if the party guys and gals are reading:

1. I can’t post everything you send since it would probably be too often. I will certainly give it fair consideration.

2. Make the content unique - not found elsewhere online.

3. Make it worth talking about and more interesting than your first draft.

Thanks again Nemesis. I’m really glad you asked the question so this could be explained.

Nemesis,

You are right that the government has been using the SS surplus to hide its deficit spending - i.e., borrowing against the surplus.

However, being able to opt out is a horrible idea. The whole point of the SS system is that the country was tired of seeing old people living in destitution. We don’t want people like Bundy gambling on being able to provide for himself. If opting out is allowed, then nine out of ten Bundys will do fine. But one will end up living in a box in the alley. That’s the Bundy that needs the safety net.

It’s a social compact that we all agree to participate in - much like other social compacts (i.e., joint defense, public transport, environmental protection, international negotiations, etc.). Those compacts do not work if people like Bundy demand to opt out. Actually, they don’t work if Bundy’s demands are implemented. Luckily, most of the country saw through Bush’s deceitful attempt to implement that idea.

The key is that the money you pay into SS is NOT your money. It is supposed to go to those who are currently retired. Just like the money you pay to your insurance company goes to people who have current needs for health care - generally not you. When you get sick, sometime in the future, you get money from all the healthy people. That’s how insurance works.

I’m glad you’ve come around. Perhaps Bundy will, too. However, the person who really needs to come around is McCain. How can somebody who is that ignorant about a major government program be running for president? I guess the GOP bar has been set pretty low.

I wish the Gov’t would just take all our money and give everyone a monthly allotment, that way no one would be poor, or homeless. It worked in the Soviet Union, I for one would love to feel the comforting arms of a compassionate government taking care of me for the rest of my life. Never have to worry about my next meal or healthcare, In fact, why would I have to work? No worries about gas prices, the gov’t should provide decent public transportation and of course it should be free. Someday, if we ever wake up and elect more Democrats this dream could be a reality,

I wish the Gov’t would just leave us all our money and stop doing anything for us, that way no one would be outraged that a single penny of their money benefited anybody else. It worked in every apocalyptic novel. I for one would love to feel completely on my own for the rest of my life. Never have to worry about anybody else’s next meal or healthcare. In fact, why would I have to get anything from anybody else? No worries about gas prices, there’d be no public transportation at all. Someday, if we ever wake up and elect more Republicans this dream could be a reality,

See? Sarcastically taking somebody else’s argument to the extreme usually makes the commenter look pretty dumb.

This is a great thread to follow, so far! Very passionate opinions, very well articulated (at least from my perspective, someone on the fence who can see merit in what each person is saying.

And then with #11 Herb Sewell, some great sarcasm to point out what he feels is the overly government dependent positions taken by the Democrats (of which I am one).

And then one right after the other, two fabulously creative bits (one might say, two jabs from the left?)

Wow! What a country! What a website! This is why I like IdahoFallsToday.

I know a gal who’s husband worked hard and saved all of his life. He left her well off when he died. Unfortunately, she had horrible health problems and needed a transplant. Due to the fact that her insurance only covered $3,000 of the $5,000 needed for prescriptions, as well as other health costs each month, she is now living off that SS and desperately broke. She can no longer afford such things as the utilities and repairs needed to upkeep the home. SS is a net for all, not just some.

Is it true that our “leaders” don’t pay social security, but have some other form of payback for them and their spouses?

For Just Wondering…..

John McCain received over $23K in Social Security benefits last year, even though he’s married to a multi-millionaire. So I don’t think our “leaders” are on something different.

Social Security is a safety net; it was never designed to be the only income retirees receive, even though it turns out that way for many Americans. Since many Americans don’t max out their IRA contributions now, what makes people think these folks will start saving for their retirement if SS is made voluntary? And what makes people think these folks would make good investment choices? I’ve seen the kind of investment choices people make when left to their own devices; it’s pitiful.

The folks who are really pushing for privatization of SS are the investment firms who realized a huge boost to their business with the advent of IRAs. They see big bucks available & the commissions that go along with them. I know; I work for one such company. We don’t pay commissions to SS to invest our money in T-bills, but we would start paying them if we all had private accounts.

How about we privatize our fire departments next? We’d save millions in taxes every year! We could go back to the “good old days” when homes were protected by private fire insurance. Got a fire out back but don’t have the fire company seal on display? Too bad for you!

Regardless of how much he is putting in retirement it’s no gaurantee of safety. That’s the point I was trying to make.

Sorry, Guest House, but the majority of Americans do not want to live in the kind of society that you are proposing. We want to live in a society where there is a safety net, so that if someone is disabled or unable to work, or has their retirement wiped out (a la Enron), or whose savings are wiped out because of medical expenses, he or she can still live a life that does not involve sitting on a street corner with a sign and a cup.

That’s the purpose of SS. It is not and has never been a retirement savings program.

Go ahead and follow the good advice of the commenters on this post who suggest saving for your retirement. We should all be doing that. Hopefully, you will never truly need SS. But if you do, you’ll be grateful that it exists.

read post 17, I think that’s what 23 was referring to. I have seen very similar situations, one with my own father who did have a very nice retirement package saved up but eventually he too, had to rely on SS. You just never know. I agree that you need to save and save a lot, but you don’t know what life will throw your way. It’s good to have SS to fall back on.

I never said SS “wasn’t for me” or I didn’t like or I oppose paying for SS, and I’ll gladly take whatever is due to me. (afterall it IS my money), I just think too many people rely on it and too many people DON’T plan for their future. (too busy living for today. Not that theres anything wrong with that) In my opinion the only (or the majority) of people that are going to get “wiped out” financially due to medical bills are the same people that haven’t planned for their future. Not to sound cold or inconsiderate, but it’s not my responsibility to pay for these peoples bad choices in life. (even if they’ve had a medical issue that has wiped out their savings)
Why would you be glad that people don’t have the option of not participating? That one kind of baffles me, so if you could explain that one a little further I would like to hear your thoughts on that issue. I think each side makes some valid points, but like I said, too many people rely solely on SS and that’s not a good thing imo. On the same token, it IS a good thing SS is there to help those in need. I guess I just oppose those people who expect handouts and always want help, but won’t take action to help themselves before a situation arises.

Actually CR67, I’ve seen that here; If you don’t like it leave. Usually when they’re losing a battle of the political sort.

I can honestly say that the ones I know who got wiped out did plan their futures quite well and were wiped out by medical. Medical isn’t cheap and any major condition can easily wipe a person out. My grandparents, my father, all had a lot saved for retirement and all were wiped out due to medical bills. And when my grandparents got sick, legal hassles were another part of the picture. Lawyers sucked a real chunk up. You just don’t know. Planning well doesn’t always cut it. Both of my grandparents and my father had great jobs with great benefits and great retirement plans. Grandma was famous for stashing money. If anyone knew how to save, she did. She was in good health until she reached her early 70s. Grandpa was in good health until his early 70s. My father was in good health until his late 70s. He made some poor choices as far as his health went, but my grandparents didn’t. He actually lived longer than both of my grandparents.

I think I kind of unloaded on you, CR67. My apologies.

However, there are too many people on this thread making the argument that everyone needs to provide for him- or herself, and that nobody should have to put their money into SS if he or she doesn’t want to.

It bugs me that you and others are judging an entire class of people (those who need SS) based on your worst judgment of how they could have gotten there.

The fact is that many people used to end up destitute in their old age. And most weren’t there because they were frivolous with all their earnings. SS was created as a safety net, and it has worked very successfully for 73 years, and is solvent for the next 50 or so years, with very minor tweaks.

It is one of the most successful programs that the US Government has ever fashioned. And allowing people to opt out of it would destroy it.

Further, the conservative mindset requires certain people who receive benefits from the US government to be demonized. That’s how you eliminate welfare - and keep the poor in their place - by creating the image of the “welfare queen.” Similarly, they demonize undocumented workers, even though they are just very poor people busting their asses in low-paying work and paying more than their share of taxes. Claiming that SS should be eliminated or made voluntary just because some people don’t save for their own retirement is part of the same process.

(Notice that I said “certain people who receive benefits.” Conservatives have no problem with extra tax breaks for those who can pay off politicians. They have no problem that Frank Vandersloot can buy and sell judges. They have no problem with George Bush making his fortune by condemning the property of poor people so he could build a stadium.

Maybe that’s one distinction between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want the government to use it’s force to help the neediest among us, as best as it can. Conservatives resent that, but don’t mind when the rich get richer.

CR67 -

Check out Guest House’s comment. Invitations to leave the country are prevalent.

Ouch!

Hoagster,

You should make a finer distinction between Republicans and Conservatives. They are not necessarily the same thing……much like liberals and Democrats. For instance, I believe that tax breaks are good for everyone….not just oil companies. The root reason is that the government does a lousy job spending our money…..and the less of it they have the better the economy will end up being. It does not mean that I don’t believe in public services being provided, but it means that growth of government has gone through the roof and we have been convinced that government is the only entity that can serve us.

That line of thinking is, IMO, what has led this country down the path of degenration and loss of liberty. Everybody seems to want something from the government and expect them to save them from poor choices. Think about it:

Hurricane Katrina-Save us please!!!

Farm Subsidies for ethanol (corn).

Save my house subsidies because I took out a crappy loan.

Banking Industry, save our loans because we were irresponsible and loaned to a person who didn’t have the income to pay us off.

Amtrack, please give us more money even though we lose money every year of existence.

US Postal System, we lose money too. We said that overnight delivery wasn’t possible, until Fed Ex showed up.

Social Security, we will pay out more than we take in during the next decade. This supposed “safety net” lures people into not being responsible or interested in saving for their retirement…..and makes it easier for people to have to live in poverty as a result.

Can anyone really name one area of government that does anything of major value for less cost and better value than the private sector can provide? National Defense doesn’t count, plus we still spend $500 for a toilet seat at the Pentagon. That is a joke too.

Public servants don’t manage our tax dollars very well. They allow outlandish uses of money that continue to erode public confidence in our institutions of government. This is not healthy for our country, but the American people and the representatives that should be standing up to the bureaucracy are the major players to be blamed.

Arguably, social security was a perceived need due to the Great Depression; however, by the time it was put into law , collecting monies, and began making payments the country was well on the way to recovery. It was not an active safety net. This legislation was more of a political decision by Roosevelt and other Democrats in control of the congress to provide a “fix” to the public to gain votes by patronage to a wide class of the American public. It has become a sacred cow of American politics and has been sold as a safety net when in fact, it deprives more Americans of a comfortable retirement by removing their ability to invest as they see fit. In actuality, it was and is another invasion of government into our daily lives.

Would there really be as many people against higher taxes if the money was truly used wisely, eliminated poverty, homelessness, and other social ills? I think many more people would be on-board than there are now.

Isn’t it wonderful that we work January 1 to June 1 to pay the government before we get to start working and savings for ourselves. It makes no sense and it is certainly an anti-democratic (with a small D) proposition for the government to take as much of our income with negligible results. They often say, “You get what you pay for.” With the average amounts of what we pay into FICA and Social Security, we will never get our fair return back. Taking inflation and costs into factor, there is no way this arrangement will ever be equitable. The politicians will never fix the problem until it does broke. Until the day it does, nothing will change. If Hoagie thinks this is a safety net, just wait until it goes belly up. The real safety net will only be available to those who took the time and energy to plan, save, and provide for themselves.

If you desire active proof of this assertion, look at the city of New Orleans that had numerous groups waiting on the government to save them vs. towns in other areas in Mississippi and Alabama that were largely ignored by federal authorities, but regained their way without a herculean federal effort to come to their rescue. Government never has and never will have a monopoly on saving people from disasters and providing safety nets. Ordinary people, churches, local governments and charities have all stepped up to provide many better safety nets than a short-sighted social security system will ever provide. IMO, a small group of friends serves as a better safety net than a monthly check from the US Treasury and always will.

Great debate. Here’s a comment…

There are two distinct sides, one that says SS is going belly up because of various reasons (badly managed, too many baby boomers retiring vs work force, etc) and one side says it may need a few tweaks but it’s not a problem at all.

NOT TO HIJACK THIS THREAD…but it reminds me of global warming. One side says it’s about to be a disaster and the other side says it’s fine, or it just needs a few tweaks.

Does anyone see the similarity here (on a political scale) ?

Yet we tend to be really intrenched in our own positions. Seeing that, I am very very impressed with the quality of debate so far, and the civility expressed.

I think that almost all of the comments have been excellently written, eloquent and passionate and not snotty at all (certain exceptions already noted).