Social Security

Written by Grandma Bee on October 24th, 2004

Throw Away Grandparents

October 19, 2004 Today's announcement of the 2005 Social Security COLA is good news and bad news. Social Security makes a vital contribution to the wellbeing of 47 million Americans and the COLA is critical to their ability to keep up with inflation. But, far too many Social Security beneficiaries will see the 2.7% Social Security COLA partially or completely eroded by the Medicare Part B premium increase this year. Still imagine if there were no Social Security COLA and today's 47 million Social Security beneficiaries had to keep up with current health care and energy inflation on their own. For eight out of ten retirees, Social Security is the primary source of income. For most it is the only protection against inflation. Without the Social Security COLA, inflation would have reduced beneficiaries' income by more than one-fourth in just the last ten years. For more click here.

I would just like to ask, how is it honoring the elderly if they can’t afford to live? I don’t understand why the President wants to gut Social Security and Medicare when so many depend on them. When you look at their history, you will see that they have never failed. Both Social Security and Medicare have been there as we have needed them. There wouldn’t even be a question about their future if both parties hadn’t been raiding the funds. I’m most worried about the attention of the President and his party to privative the two. If most of us could have afforded to invest enough money to be independent from the aid of the government don’t you think we would have? I fear that all this talk is just another way to raid the treasury and who we pay for it? Not those proposing the changes, that is for sure!

 

    Here is the poll I promised you; I was unable to put it in my reply. Thank you for joining us.


 

13 Comments so far ↓

  1. Anonymous says:



        The problem is that Social Security is mostly supported by the middle class for only those dollars earned under 80,000 are subjected to the Social Security tax. If we were to make all dollars earned subjected to that tax with no loop holds then Social Security could be solvent in just a few years. The trouble is that there are those who do not want it to be solvent! Check out the poll:

  2. Anonymous says:

    I never understood why the Republican Party hates Social Security when it helps so many! I guess it is their pull yourself up by the bootstraps, but it is hardly a Christian attitude!

  3. Anonymous says:



        This clip is from the last debate, tell me that this Neo-Cons do not want to abolish Social Security! Click here

  4. Anonymous says:

    We don

  5. Anonymous says:

    I don't care if you tax the rich more, but why should I pay the Social Security tax when there won't be any Social Security when I'm old?

  6. Anonymous says:

    I know I will never see it too…but if I don't pay my SS tax my grandparents won't have enough to live on. This really sucks…but we first have to take care of those in and near retirement…then we can try to make sure there will be enough for us.

  7. Anonymous says:

    How is my little money going to help anyone?

  8. Anonymous says:


       Matt, this is the other half of the equation; every dollar should be subjected to the tax. However that does not mean that everyone should receive the benefit. Social Security should be thought of as insurance for those who might not have enough to live on at retirement. The Republicans use to talk about means testing the budget, but when they were given the chance to do so, they turned into the biggest spenders. We need to means test Social Security so that a millionaire would not receive any benefit unless he lost his fortune and then there would be a cap on how much he could receive. It is more about our duty to the nation than ourselves and worrying about how much we pay. We need to get back to the principles of community.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Marty,
    Don't you understand that Social Security is broke? All the money has been spent by liberals and now we have to save it. It looks like privatizing it is the only solution.

  10. Anonymous says:

    1. it's not broke! 2. The Republicans hve been out spending any liberal who ever held office!

  11. Anonymous says:

       The following is from The Washington Monthly. One thing it doesn’t show is that the predictions that Social Security is going bankrupt are based on the assumption that there will only be a 1% growth in the economy over the next 20 some years. Well, guess what, if that should be the case we will be in a depression that would make the Great Depression look like an economic boom.

    SOCIAL SECURITY DOOM MONGERING….As we all know — because President Bush told us yesterday — Social Security “is headed towards bankruptcy down the road.” Specifically, according the Social Security trustees, the point at which full benefits can no longer be paid out comes 38 years from now in the year 2042. This prediction is based on a complex model that takes into account future economic performance, population growth, demographic changes, and so forth.

    But anyone who's been listening to the Social Security doom mongers for a while knows that there's a problem with this prediction — and since a picture is worth a thousand words I commissioned the chart on the right from the crack Political Animal graphics team. It shows the last decade's worth of Social Security predictions, and it turns out that back in 1994 the Social Security trustees were predicting that doomsday was….

    35 years away.

    That's right: even though ten years have passed, doomsday is now farther away than it was in 1994. As every year goes by, the doomsday schedule moves out another year too. Why? Because the doomsday predictions are extremely sensitive to the economic assumptions behind them, and if those assumptions are off by a little bit, so are the predictions.

    In other words, Social Security doom mongering has a pretty checkered past — which means that perhaps the current doom mongering isn't quite on target either. In fact, maybe Social Security is in perfectly good shape and doesn't need “rescuing.” The most prudent course might be to wait a few years and find out.

    THE NON-BROKEN SOCIAL SECURITY

    How long does Social Security have to live? Longer than it used to have…

  12. Anonymous says:

    Then why is the President warning us about it going broke?

  13. Anonymous says:

    Dear heart, the Republicans have always hated Social Security. What they are trying to do is give its funds to the corporate friends as a gift. That is what this is about and it is a shame. How can George W. Bush call himself a Christian and do this?

Leave a Comment