MyDD :: Social Security is Healthy and Successful

Social Security is Healthy and Successful

by Chris Bowers, Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:22:08 PM EST

Via Kevin Drum. The title to this piece is how we fight back against this problem:

I'm not sure the older liberals who run the show quite understand how overwhelmingly important it is to keep the "there is no crisis" message front and center in the Social Security debate. Most of the young people I know -- including myself until very recently -- have been taken in by a decades-long effort on behalf of privatizers into believing that Social Security is in "crisis," and that if we do nothing the system will "go bankrupt" before we retire, meaning that the system will somehow collapse and we won't get any benefits.

Growing up, I bought into this as well. Right now, many more people are probably buying into it, considering the media fix is in to claim there is a crisis. I mean, how many people do independent research on Social Security? If all you hear in news reports are conservatives and libertarians (who are identified as experts rather than conservatives or libertarians) claiming that there is funding crisis, why wouldn't you believe it? These people are experts, after all.

Let's fight back with frames that tell the truth and express our beliefs. Social Security has been, and still is, successful in its goal to keep seniors from starving in poverty. Social Security is a healthy program that is fully funded for the next fifty years, and even then it will only take small changes in revenue to keep it fully funded for several more decades. Any attempt to privatize Social Security is a right-wing power grab on behalf of wealthy investment firms that are lying in order to destroy a healthy and successful program. In countries where Social Security has been abolished, senior poverty is skyrocketing.

I will be attending a family Christmas party on Sunday, and if the subject of Social Security comes up, this is the frame I will be bringing with me. I suggest you do the same if you are with relatives this weekend. Granted, my generally liberal family probably will not be arguing for the destruction of Social Security, but at the very least they might find this frame helpful in their discussions with others. Here are some other framing tips to follow when engaging in political discussions.

Tags: Activism (all tags)

Permalink :: 35 Comments :: Post a Comment

In addition to defending our ideas (2.00 / 0)

about social security by calling it healthy and successful, serious thought ought to be given to attacking them. Their plan wants to gamble your future. Phrase it that way. People will recoil.

by cls on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 03:26:57 PM EST

"successful" vs. "no crisis" (3.00 / 5)

To make the rhetorical advantages of Chris's title deserves more explicit:

We need to say "social security is healthy and successful" as your title suggests, rather than
"there is no crisis" as Kevin suggests.

The former sounds like a statement of fact, the latter sounds like a denial. Lakoff talks about this problem using the example of Nixon's "I am not a crook" line. Saying "there is no crisis" makes people think about a crisis, and defeats the entire purpose of one's argument.

Want Blue States? ActBlue.

by brahn on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 03:56:46 PM EST

Re: 'successful' vs. 'no crisis' (none / 0)

Absolutely! Earns a '3' from me!

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"successful" vs. "no crisis" (2.00 / 0)

The "Social Security is successful, and only needs some fine tuning" meme is a very important counter-frame; but the "crisis" message can also be turned against BushCo. As in:

"The only threat to Social Security is George Bush and the Republicans."

"The only crisis in Social Security is if George Bush and the Republicans are allowed to destroy it."

"The Republicans have been against Social Security since the beginning, and George Bush's lies are just the latest installment."

Or something like that -- emphasize the lies, and that Bush and the GOP are the real threat to Social Security.

Digby has more --

by ck on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 02:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I need to see your math. (1.00 / 0)

Gore's infamous LOCKBOX wanted to protect SS funds from being raided. If people hide some surplus SS $'s from the raiders, this is a good thing.

If the investments then help US corporations by lending them capital at a good return, this is also a good thing.

If the investments prevent people from getting their expected SS checks- this is a very bad thing.

Raiding SS for the general fund is a regressive tax. How can democrats support the status quo?

by wizard61 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 03:57:35 PM EST

Misinformed (3.00 / 1)

At the risk of repeating myself, once again, blame for the misinformation belongs as much to the Democratic leadership in Washington as anyone else. For over a decade they have failed to challenge the premise that SS was going bankrupt. Clinton and Gore played along with it, with their "lockbox" garbage, to avoid tax cuts, not realizing that they were playing into the Republicans' hands on SS. Had Clinton used the "bully pulpit" to educate the people on the issue, we wouldn't be where we are today. And had one congressional Democrat stood up to the like of Tim Russert when he blathered on about the "crisis," the media wouldn't so easily accept the myth today.

by Paleo on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:02:52 PM EST

Half Right (2.00 / 0)

As A DLC Centrist, Clinton had no problem with his triangulation strategy, shifting the heavy lifting onto someone else.

However, it's both innacurate and unfair to say "had one congressional Democrat stood up to the like of Tim Russert" then things would be just peachy today. The media has no trouble at all ignoring a mere Congress person--or riduculing them mercilessly based on outright lies--if that's what they want to do.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unchallenged premise (3.00 / 0)

But why should the media challenge the premise if no one else in "authority" is challenging it? The media didn't come up with the myth. The right-wing did. It was up their opponents, and SS supporters, to attack it. They didn't. They continued to accept the premise. To make matters worse, they failed to push the simplest solution to any future shortfall: lifting the FICA cap.

Now, we're left playing catch-up. There was no need to be this far behind the curve to begin with.

by Paleo on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unchallenged premise (2.00 / 0)

I'm not disagreeing, I'm adding a wrinkle.

When someone in authority does challenge the premise, they get demoted as an authority.

It's a double whammy.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was a moving number (3.00 / 0)

Unfair and uninformed. You have to read the Reports and watch how the numbers moved over time. If you read the 1997 Report you see projections that showed the economy needed to outperform its historical averages to save the system entirely. At that point in time it was still fair to use the word "crisis" and this was the context in which Clinton launched "Save Social Security First". And his proposed solution, simply paying down long term debt instead of tax cuts was defensible anyway.

Paleo is making the same mistake that privatizers are making in reverse. Each is trying to impose static arguments on a dynamic situation. This odd attempt to shift blame back on the Clinton Administration simply reflects the same ignoring of the actual numbers in the Reports that has produced the media blind spot to begin with.

Social Security was in dire peril in 1982, it was at mild risk in 1996, it is totally healthy today. And those people who don't understand the difference between somewhat overstating the problem so that the surplus funds would go to pay down the National Debt (the Clinton position) and demagouging the "crisis", insisting on maintaining tax cuts anyway, and financing a $1 trillion dollar shift from benefits to Wall Street commissions financed by borrowing (the Bush position) just don't get it.

The problem wasn't and isn't static. Judgements that were defensible in 1996 aren't necessarily valid today. And a little less circular firing squad action is in order here. Clinton and Gore's "lockbox" was an attempt, initially successful, to prevent a Republican Congressional majority from passing damaging tax cuts targeted at the wealthy. And our conversation, and the national bottom line would be much different if that "lockbox" had carried Gore past Florida.

Throwing around words like "garbage" is, to coin a phrase, simply garbage.

Links to HTML version of 1997 Report of the Trustees & Links to 2004 Report or you can track the movements of the projected numbers from Report to Report Economic Assumptions 1996 Report to 2004 Report

The economy has consistently outperformed the projections, in return the numbers going forward have been compressed in a fashion that is embarassing. 1.6% long term productivity? But the numbers for 1996 were not out of line with reality and pretending they were is just playing into the hands of the enemy.

by Bruce Webb on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 08:47:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was a moving number (none / 0)

I know that the numbers have moved over time. But I also know that the intermediate project has been consistently out of whack, far below historical rates of economic performance. Clinton never challenged those projections. He never focused on the fundamental, underlying cooking of the books--which he was in a perfect place to do. "The Bully Puplit," and all that.

That's my objection. He tied one hand behind his back, and then beat the crap out of the opposition. It was a truly impressive performance. But it was, in the end, an ego trip. "Look what I can do!" It left the playing field even more tilted than it was before, because Clinton tacitly accepted the tilt. And now that Bush has the bully pulpit, we are all paying for Clinton's masterful triangulation.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 12:14:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope that is just backwards (3.00 / 0)

He didn't tie his hands behind his back, he tied the hands of the Republicans who were posed to pass big tax cuts. You could hear the air come out of their balloon when he uttered those magic words.

What would have been the point in declaring the "Crisis" over, what exactly would Clinton have gained from that? He wasn't about to get any expensive social program through. And while the rhetoric of Republicans and Americans generally on deficit reduction is tough, reality has shown to be much different. They would have demanded that the surplus be spent.

This was in my view a brilliant move. It bought Clinton time and started taking huge whacks at the outstanding Public Debt. And exactly what was wrong with that?

It may have had the by-effect of fighting privatization harder. But then if so many on the left hadn't been to lazy to notice that the exhaustion date was steadily moving into the future and actually downloaded and read the Reports we wouldn't be having this discussion. I have been posting on this since 1997, I have been trying to lead this particular horse to water for a long time.

But this clumsy attempt to deflect the responsibility for fundamental ignorance on this topic back onto Clinton is just wrong. He didn't personally intervene to keep some smart young bloggers from doing their homework on this until "recently".

It kind of reminds me of the former left war-supporters. "Gee I thought all those people opposing the war were just hippies because that is all I saw in Santa Cruz" instead of "I really apologize for not taking your argument seriously and giving it the respect it deserved". I'm still waiting for the wholesale apologies to Steve Gilliard and Scott Ritter.

by Bruce Webb on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 01:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope that is just backwards (none / 0)

I'm still working on that article, I'm procrastinating from, so I'll make this really brief.

I've been writing about Social Security lies since the late 1990s. Not blogging about--my own blog is woefully neglected--but I've done book reviews and written about in various venues. I heatily concur that it's been lonely work.

As for Clinton's strategy, I don't think we can easily disentangle this from larger views of how wise his overall approach was. I happen to think it was dengerously foolish. He severely misjudged the differences between Little Rock and DC. His retail brilliance blinded him to more fundamental considerations. But that's not a discussion we're going to settle anytime soon. And besides is pretty much a distraction from what we have to do now.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 03:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of 401K's and social security (3.00 / 1)

One of the most interesting parts of this whole debate are the rise in 401K's and the resulting tax implications. People forget that 401K's defer tax, they don't excuse it. At some point people will start withdrawing from 401K's - and when they do they will pay the tax on it.

The paper I link to is the single most important document in the social security debate. It contains an estimate of the amount of tax the government will receive from 401K's. Done by Michael Boskin - Bush I's former economic advisor - it states:

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/burch/e231_sp03/Boskin.pdf

"the real present value of the net budgetary impact of future deffered taxes...is more than the acturial deficit in Social Security and Medicare" Get that - there is no deficit for BOTH social security and Medicare.

by fladem on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:12:54 PM EST

Pessimistic Conservatives Cannot Fix SS (3.00 / 2)

This is an excerpt from a piece at the Rockridge Institute's website. That's George Lakoff's outfit.

Pessimistic Conservatives Cannot Fix Social Security
by Fred Block

The Administration's push for radical reform of Social Security rests on impossible to solve the system's long term financing problems. In reality, this pessimism is simply a consequence of their deep hostility to public spending.

Right-wingers endlessly repeat the mantra that when Social Security began, there were 42 people paying into the system for every person receiving benefits and that by 2040 that ratio will fall to 2 working people for every retiree. The logical conclusion is obvious: we can no longer guarantee retirees the level of benefits that they currently receive. The elderly will have to tighten their belts and rely more on their own private savings.

Think, however, of the deep pessimism that lies behind this argument. It is like saying that in 1900, there was one farmer or farm worker for every seven Americans, but because that ratio has fallen to one farmer for every 83 people, we should all tighten our belts and eat less food. Rising agricultural productivity has made it possible for fewer people to provide all the food that we need. In the same way, if we can grow our economy and increase productivity over the next forty years, each working person should have no difficulty producing enough extra wealth to provide support for half of a retired person.

Providing economic security to the aged is just a question of how we divide the pie. Today, social security outlays represent 4.5% of our total economic output. If the economy grows strongly over the next forty years, we can support the elderly as generously as we do now with only 5% of the total pie even with further gains in life expectancy. In short, strong economic growth is the key to solving the long-term financing problems of Social Security.

It goes on to talk about how investing in education and research is the key to promoting long-term economic growth. (My editorial comment: Stem cell research--the key to saving Social Security!)

Read the whole (brief) article here.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:20:06 PM EST

Great article... (2.00 / 0)

That is a great frame, one that everyone needs to think about adopting.

We need to start taking this one step farther and making the case that the Republicans and their fiscal recklessness are destroying Americas ability to compete in the world and put our future at great risk.

I know that this sounds anti-progressive, but we need to strike fear into the mindset of the American people over their policies and provide clear cut alternatives to resolving them that resonate with the American people. Everyone in America is so totally in debt right now that they can and do relate to the fear of losing everything in the face of financial calamity, medical bills, job loss, you name it.

I believe today that if John Kerry would have just told the truth to the American people, he would be president today. If he would have said, "ey America, I'd love to promise you a rose garden like, but this president has put our nation in peril with his recklessness economic policies, and we've got to fix this mess before we can do anything else", he would have won.

This is so laughable, in two years, every single working American will be paying 400 dollars a month just to pay the interest on the federal debt. This number will just go up and will be perpetual without ever actually paying off the debt

And this president acts like he's concerned about our Children's future. Oh please, anyone want to just do the math as to how much our children would have by being able to save that 4800 dollars a year for a 40 year working span? Do you realize that without adding one single dime more in debt to the federal debt, if interest rates returned to what they were in the 80's every single dollar that is paid into the system including the payroll tax would be needed just to pay the interest on it.

And they will return to those days, you can bet on it, the years of easy money will insure it, the more risk our creditors have to take in order to finance us the more interest they will ask for in return.

We have all the ammo we need, will we use it?

by laughingriver on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The premise is fine (none / 0)

Indeed the whole "covered worker" debate is clouded with obfuscation. But the intial sentence of the excerpt quoted is not even in English. Either a couple of words dropped out or Professor Lakoff has dropped his standards since the time he gave me a B- in Introduction to Linguistics at Cal in 1975. (I still remember him telling me that I should have done the extra credit project, he was and almost certainly still is a really warm person).

by Bruce Webb on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 08:58:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The premise is fine (none / 0)

My bad. Posting this was part of my furtive procrastiation campaign for the article I'm working on. I didn't catch the dropped words. It should have read:

"The Administration?s push for radical reform of Social Security rests on the idea that it is impossible to solve the system?s long term financing problems."

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 11:52:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

fighting on google (2.00 / 0)

If you've googled "social security" you've found the privateers' site set up by the expoiters at CATO. If you have a blog, please add the following link to your template:

Social Security

Please pass this on.

We can do far better.

by Bob Brigham on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:27:35 PM EST

I think that this is going to be a hard sell to... (2.00 / 0)

the public and the media in the context of all of the talk about the trade deficit and the budget deficit. It is starting to sink in that we have serious financial problems facing us, there are more than enough economists and financial advisers raising serious alarms about the US's financial stability and viability.

A good read is America the Broke and Running on Empty.

So were faced with on the one hand trying to convince everyone in America that Social Security is just fine and dandy, while on the other hand raising alarms about the fiscal crisis that awaits us.

All the while, we're playing right into the hands of Norquist and the "starve the beast" crowd who won't care if America returns to a great depression as long as it kills off the federal government.

And we apparently want to act like conservatives on this. No matter that the preachings are, real conservatism is about resisting change and holding onto long established traditions and standing up for them, liberalism fosters and embraces reform and change for the betterment of everyone involved.

I'd love the media to ask George "Well gee George, if there is such a crisis, why did you not see it 3.5 years ago when you decided to pass out tax breaks to millionaires, do you still think that was such a good idea".

Our real chance here is to get the media and the country to focus on the fiscal crisis that George Bush has created by telling everyone that we are in imminent danger of financial collapse and that the plan George Bush proposes increases that risk greatly. If we can frame that debate and stand firm on no more fiscal recklessness and offer an alternative that boxes Bush in and offers up sound fiscal policies we'll have a much better chance of making America look at us as a viable alternative to them come the next elections.

But this play of "there is not problem" won't work, most Americans know that the government is running us into the ground and won't separate social security, from the budget deficit and the trade deficits. Just today Gillespie research sent out a missive that stated.

The US $11.1 Trillion FY-2004 Deficit! Yesterday, the Treasury released the "Financial Report of the United States Government," covering fiscal year 2004. It indicated that when generally accepted accounting principles are employed to do the calculations, the US ran an incredible $11.1 trillion deficit last fiscal year. This was equal to 96% of fiscal 2004's gross domestic product!

Why is this important?

Because more and more financial advisers and experts, are telling the truth to their clients about our governments financial situation. This is the stuff that goes out to the CEO's, and global investors, and the movers and shakers, so while the president and the pundits are talking "make-believe" the world is on notice to reduce interests in American assets, and CEO's are preparing also.

Sorry, while I'll inform my family of the truth to the presidents plan I won't be telling them that everything is fine and dandy, that I'll leave to the Bushies and the Republicans.

Take this tact and we'll play right into their hands, because we will not be able to shine the light on just how dangerous a situation they have gotten us into.

Our position should be that the program is in peril and its George Bush and the Republicans fault, and we should be the ones who propose the reform to resolve and fix it, not them.

Make no mistake, George Bush does not want to do anything, this is all a distraction to keep the media from seeing the impact of the dollar fall, the lack of job creation, the increasing trade deficit, the increasing budget deficit, the Iraq war, the cost of the war, you name it, this is the Trojan Horse for all of it.

They want us to look over here while they run our country into the ground, Aristocrats, believe it or not just don't care about the common folks, they could care less about the means as long as the ends are what they desire.

Lets not fall for it, lets say "George, we'd love to help you fix the mess you've created in Social Security, but we've got to return this country to fiscal soundness first and foremost, until we do that we're in no position to do anything"

by laughingriver on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:40:08 PM EST

Strengthen Social Security (3.00 / 0)

I think the right tack to take is that Social Security is a successful program that needs to be strengthened so it continue to serve the purposes it has served so well for 65 years--that is, to reduce senior poverty and to assure our older folks a secure retirement. So, instead of a radical privatization that won't solve the funding shortfall, as everyone admits, getting some additional funds into the program through lifting the cap on the payroll tax (as was done with Medicare) is a move that will help keep the plan solvent beyond the current problem point in 2042 or so. Alternately, some matching reduction on benefits for high net worth persons could be considered--or some combination of the two. Everyone knows there is a problem lurking down the line and if we deny it we have no credbiility--but we should focus on some modifications on both ends that will strengthen the program so it can continue to serve its original purposes and still enjoy widespread support as a program that benefits most people.

by bluestatespecial on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:03:24 PM EST

"Everyone knows" is the problem (3.00 / 0)

There is no evidence that there is a "problem point in 2042" indeed there is a great deal of evidence, like the headlines, that that 2042 date will have to be shoved back.

The 2042 exhaustion date is not some sort of Platonic Ideal, something carved in stone. It is a date derived from a specific economic and demographic projection found in the 2004 Report of the Trustees of Social Security, the so-called "Intermediate Cost Alternative". Since the late 80's the Intermediate Cost Alternative has advanced this date from an initial 2023 to the current 2042. Why? Well it is not because Boomers magically vanished. It is because the economy has consistently outperformed the numbers in the model. And guess what, we did it again.

Economic productivity for 2004 is coming in at right around 4.0%. Bush Administration economists are projecting that will drop to 3.5% in 2005 White House Predicts Slower Growth in 2005 . Both numbers totally blow away the numbers in the Intermediate Cost Alternative (2.7% for 2004, 1.8% for 2005), in fact they make a mockery of the supposed Low Cost Alternative that shows a system with no gap at all (2.8% for 2004, 2.1% for 2005).

2042 is the Monty Python dead parrot of our day. No amount of fast talking will convince us that it is not in fact deceased. We don't know what the date of exhaustion will be, we may well disbelieve that that date will ever dawn. But absent some very fancy footwork in the 2005 Report that date will once again be pushed into the future.

Your insistance that "denial" is a losing strategy simply ignores the numbers. Your acceptance of that 2042 date is playing into the hands of the opposition (who by the way have no problem projecting 3.5% growth in 2005 while accepting economic projections far lower to sell the "problem"). You are suggesting the equivalent of the "prevent defense" in football. The only thing the prevent defense has ever prevented is victory.

Grind the numbers in their faces. Demand that they justify the 1.6% productivity growth in the out years that underlies that 2042 date or abandon it altogether. Make them produce the economic model that returns historic rates of returns on stocks that doesn't save Social Security handily along the way.

Repeat after me: "Social Security is not broke. Under any reasonable economic projection it is actually overfunded." These numbers were debateable in 1996, they are laughable today. Arm yourselves with numbers and watch the privatizers squirm. We have the upper hand on this one.

Economic Assumptions: 1996 Report to 2004 Report and then check out the graph that shows the results of our meeting or beating the Low Cost ( I) numbers 2004 Report: Trust Fund Ratios under the Three Alternatives

by Bruce Webb on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 09:33:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Social Security is Dying? (none / 0)

GOP = Get Old People

by firedoglake on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:19:55 PM EST

Healthy and Successful (none / 0)

This is my first MyDD posting.

Thanks Chris for your brilliant work and dedication.

This frame of Social Security as "healthy" and "successful" was promoted by a series of recent Frameshop sessions over at dKos.

RE a recent comment in the book club about not having a megaphone to promote our framing efforts: Megaphones come in many shapes and sizes. Everything has to start somewhere. These efforts will take Conservatives by storm.

You'd be suprised how far Frameshop has travelled after just a month.

Back on topic:

Social Security is healthy and successful.

Repeat.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:45:58 PM EST

Third Time for the Bush "Fear Factor" (none / 0)

It's just so clear that this is the third time he is yelling "boo" to get his way on a big issue -- first time - Iraq .. second time - vote for Kerry, get attacked. And now this. People, they have no credibility. Not only should we say that they are wrong but that they just aren't believable. I mean, where are those WMDs anyways? We need a one two punch and this should be the follow up punch to the "No, the system is very healthy" right hand jab. And we need to repeat the punches every where we speak,

by Loganpoppy on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 08:20:15 PM EST

12 reasons ...... (3.00 / 0)

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503

http://www.movingideas.org/

Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea
Greg Anrig Jr., Bernard Wasow, The Century Foundation, 12/14/04

Addressing Social Security's potential long-term financing challenges by taking the dramatic step of diverting its payroll taxes to create new personal accounts will have drastic consequences for federal finances, future retirees, and those who rely on the system the most. Learn more about twelve major reasons why less costly and less painful reforms should be considered instead.

Introduction
Reason #1: Today's insurance to protect workers and their families against death and disability would be threatened.

Reason #2: Creating private accounts would make Social Security's financing problem worse, not better.

Reason #3: Creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken Social Security's future finances.

Reason #4: Privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere.

Reason #5: The odds are against individuals investing successfully.

Reason #6: What you get will depend on whether you retire when the market is up or down.

Reason #7: Wall Street would reap windfalls from your taxes.

Reason #8: Private accounts would require a new government bureaucracy.

Reason #9: Young people would be worse off.

Reason # 10: Women stand to lose the most.

Reason #11: African Americans and Latin Americans also would become more vulnerable under privatization.

Reason #12: Retirees will not be protected against inflation.
Notes......more

by jasmine on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 01:06:05 AM EST

Help me out here folks (3.00 / 0)

Is there some way that we can start to counter frame the 'Social security crisis' into the 'Republician Ponsi Scheme' to let coperations steal from our parents?

I need help in finding supporting arguements.

Thanks.

by NvDem on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 01:30:02 AM EST

May I use these? (3.00 / 0)

Is it OK to use some the ideas or phases from this blog to write to the editor? The people here have great writing skills and I think you have some great arguments, but I do not want to break any rules.

by SRconbio on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 03:22:58 AM EST

Steal away would be my answer (none / 0)

Phrases and ideas are continually launched into the blogtopian blogosphere and get echoed back in the most remarkable places. As long as you aren't cutting and pasting whole paragraphs and posts I can't imagine anyone would have an objection to seeing their ideas and words making it into print by whatever means.

There are phrases floating around dKos that I had a hand in shaping or popularizing. "The Chimperor has no clothes" wasn't mine, but it is brilliant and I sure didn't hesitate to use it.

We are in a pitched battle with a ruthless enemy and I would say use whatever weapons come to hand. Or we could just fall back on this from the bottom of Kos' page:

by Bruce Webb on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 10:05:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May I use these? (none / 0)

Sure -- here's one you can use...

When Bush says that SS must be fixed, just remember that he means "fixed" as in "getting the dog fixed". And just like the Steve Martin joke of olde, remember, your dog worked just fine before you "fixed him" , if you know what I mean?

by Loganpoppy on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 05:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Along those lines (none / 0)

That recalls the Gary Larson cartoon of one dog sticking his head out of the car in the driveway and telling his buddy:

"Hey great news, they're taking me to the vet to get tutored"

by Bruce Webb on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 01:57:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

For more on this subject... (none / 0)

See posts today by Digby and Max Sawicky (Maxspeaks). Two good heads thinking about SSA.

I think we all quote stuff from the blogs, don't we? So much more interesting and relevant stuff is found here than in mainstream media. I never hesitate to quote but always try to attribute the quote to the writer.

@NvDem, I hope you know the useful blog, Western Democrats.

by Bean on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 03:35:14 PM EST

Re: For more on this subject... (none / 0)

now why would my coments on this be deleted? Holy censorship batman. I violated no code of conduct so whats the deal???

by PaTubby on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 11:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Use your heads (2.00 / 1)

sucessful or not, the real truth is that the SSS is a terrible system. The return on the investment is disgusting, and when you die uncle sam keeps the money. How fair is this? I will never understand why we do not have the option to not participate in the SSS. People would be much better off at retirement if they slugged the money into a roth IRA, rather than into a government program. A person making 50K would retire with millions if they contributed the 12.5% into a roth from age 20 until age 65, on the other hand they will get around $500 a month letting uncle sam manage the money. What a deal!!! Say the same person dies at 66 years old, the goverment will have dispersed him $6000, and then keep rest of his hard earned money. The guy who opted out and put his 12.5% into the roth will have a hearty bankroll to leave to his children, church, or whatever he pleases. Hell, he could bury it with him like King Tut if he wanted. Which position would you rather be in? The SSS is basicly a device that the government uses to bail out irresponsible people who have not been wise enough to save for their own retirement.

by PaTubby on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 03:34:42 PM EST

ok (none / 0)

old coins, buy gold coins, coin coins, coast to coast coins, gold coins for sale, gold bullion coins, coast to coast coins, mexican coins, ancient coins, australian coins.

by ma1k0va74 on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 10:03:46 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.