Social Security remains the biggest Republican target that that are still afraid to touch, but they keep up the steady stream of propaganda, in the hopes that more people will come to believe the lies, and let them get away with stealing our retirement. Rep. Paul Akin (R-MO) provided us with some whoppers. He won’t tell you what their real goal is.
As Republicans gear up to cut social welfare programs like Social Security, they’ve been careful to craft a public message that says they support these programs, and that their reform efforts are merely attempts to save the social safety net. “Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken — it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said yesterday.
But appearing on CSPAN’s Washington Journal this morning, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), who sits on the Budget Committee, had a more honest (and negative) assessment of Social Security…
…Watch it:
Despite Akin’s claim, Social Security is far more than a tax. After 75 years in existence, the program “remains one of the nation’s most successful, effective, and popular programs.” It has dramatically reduced elderly poverty — nearly half of seniors today would be in poverty without it — and it is the nation’s most effective tool at alleviating poverty among people with disabilities. It does all this while spending less than a penny per dollar on administrative costs. And despite conservatives’ fear mongering, Social Security is not going bankrupt any time soon… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
Of course, what Republicans want to do is to turn the program over to their Bankster buddies, who need more fodder after having transferred much of the equity people had in their homes to the super-rich, and severely wounding the housing market in the process. If these Banksters get control of our retirement funds, will they manage them for a penny on the dollar like the Social Security Administration does, or will they suck up the wealth from that too? My money is on the latter.
Even if we do nothing, and the trust fund runs out in 37 years, recipients will still receive 80% of their benefits, far more that they will after 37 years of Bankster attention, if Republicans get their way. But that would be foolish and unnecessary. The shortfall can be fixed tomorrow by raising the income cap, and letting those who created the problem share in the burden of fixing it.
Also, remember the biggest Republican lie of all. Social Security has never added a penny to the defecit, so controlling “government spending” has nothing to do with this.
16 Responses to “The Latest Republican Lies about Social Security”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The social security trust fund is sitting at a little over 2 trillion dollars. The banksters are drooling at the thought of getting their claws into that sum and skimming off some cream.
Amen Jerry.
I think we should means test Social Security. Make it a true insurance program, not a pension program. Then we should raise the benefits, so people could actually live on that income.
Tom, I think means testing would make social security more like a welfare program, not like a true insurance program. In an insurance program, you pay your premium against a set condition, in this case retirement age, and you get your benefit.
More important, if only people who can prove they “need it” share in the benefits, it becomes self interest for people who will not need it to get rid of the program entirely.
I’m against means-testing for three reasons:
[1] It penalizes people who took responsibility for their retirement years, who were thrifty and invested their own moneys for their own future. Now that they’re using their own money in retirement, they should not be penalized for being responsible and prudent which is what means-testing would do.
[2] “A new analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) confirms that means-testing would yield very little in savings … unless we took benefits away not only from rich retirees, but also from many who are solidly middle-class.”
[3] If means-testing were in place, there would be no real incentive to save for your future. What would be the point since it would only lower your return from Social Security? Might as well forgo saving, spend what you got and then be compensated with a larger payout in retirement years.
While I happen to fall within the parameters of the above rubric, during my working years I was also fortunate to fall within the parameter of annually paying the maximum contribution to Social Security. I was then, and still am now, strongly in favor of eliminating the maximum contribution cap. The well-to-do (like me, for instance) should pay substantially more than what is now being withheld.
Eliminating the maximum cap would make SS a much less regressive tax.
I’m with you So.
Means-testing is not necessary. SS is doing just fine, thank you! At most, it needs some minor tweaking. As you said, even if nothing is done, at worst, it will still payout 80%. In fact, with a few minor changes, SS can be completely self-supporting and there will be no need to even pay back the money that has been “loaned” to the federal government.
I agree with all the above.
I agree 100% with So I Need A Name : I oppose any means test for SS– nor should SS retirement be taxed ; The points made a very valid; Eliminating the cap seems the most logical and effective means of curing what is a simple problem- – I have been around long enough to see the effectivenes of SS—- I am on SS retirement– I know what its benefits are !! I worked for 50 years- and saved- did everything “They” say I should have done —Now we see the rug pulled out-??- The Repug “solutions” are all about Greed–
Sorry to disagree with you Tom— I rarely do– but in this you are wrong !! You Identified the problem fine– but solving through means testing is plain wrong!!– As far as I am concerned– Rich retirees pay in– they are also entitled to their return—
The Bankers need to keep their greedy little paws off SS–and the maximum cap eliminated– !! Its a math problem–
Um… Phyllis, I’m not ‘Tom’. I’m TomCat. Tom is a different person. My solution (see the article) is eliminating the cap.
No surprise that I could be wrong.
My point – what I favor, is a true insurance program where those who have a valid claim would recieve payment – not a pension program. If you prefer SS to be a pension program, then of course means testing, makes no sense.
Certainly I agree that ALL income should be SS taxed, no caps. I haven’t checked the Math. Would eliminating the cap be enough?
I also believe that benefits should be increased for those with no other income.
Tom, see my first comment to you above. I have done the math, not only will eliminating the income cap more than solve the problem, just raising it may be sufficient to do so. Eliminating it would likely make an increase in benefits possible.
Eventually, means-testing will have to be employed, if nothing changes.
But that’s a ways down the road. And I’d be just as happy to allow the rich to pay their fair share, instead of means test.
Without lifting the income cap, means testing will have to be employed. I agree.
For those who don’t believe in means testing, I would rebut with this: the rich have gotten a hell of a free ride of the rest of us for over 30 years now. We’re paying the taxes, they’re reaping the benefits. If it went the other way ion the case of Social Security, I wouldn’t shed any tears.
JR, I’m with you in principal, but changing Social Security in that manner would damage the public’s perception of what it is. Republicans are already trying to call it a welfare program. Means testing would give them a justification.