Another Great Depression – Grandma Millie

Written by Marty on February 7th, 2005

   From the conception of Social Security the Republican Party has been opposed to it. One can only speculate as to why that is, but no one can speculate about the successfulness Social Security.

Social Security works because it speaks to a universal human need. All people throughout human history have faced the uncertainties brought on by death, disability and old age. . . Social Security has grown to become an essential facet of modern life. One in six Americans receives a Social Security benefit, and about 98 percent of all workers are in jobs covered by Social Security. Social Security benefits comprise about 5% of the nation's total economic output. From 1940, when slightly more than 222,000 people received monthly Social Security benefits, until today, when almost 45 million people receive such benefits, Social Security has grown steadily. And Social Security benefits provide income security not just to the elderly. Nearly 1 in 3 beneficiaries are not retirees.
The SSI program, meanwhile, provides needed income support to over 6 million recipients, 31% of whom are aged individuals; 56% disabled adults; and 13% disabled children.

“We can never insure one-hundred percent of the population against one-hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age. This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built, but is by no means complete…. It is…a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.” — August 14, 1935 Link

   Mr. Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security will allow Wall Street to do to it what Enron did to Grandma Millie. The question is do you feel lucky? Just remember the people who were investing in Enron and World Com felt that lady luck had smiled down on them. No one feels that will now!

  Statue of Liberty Liberty for all!

According to;    Bush: “By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt . If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.”   But how severe would those benefit cuts be? In fact there are two official projections — one by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and a somewhat less pessimistic projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The President referred to the SSA projection, which calculates that the system's trust fund will be depleted in 2042. After that, the system would have legal authority to pay only 73 percent of currently promised benefits — and that figure would decline each year after, reaching 68 percent in the year 2075. The CBO doesn't project trust-fund depletion until a decade later, in 2052, and figures that the benefits cuts wouldn't be so severe, a reduction to 78% of promised benefits. But either way, even a “bankrupt” system would continue to provide most of what's promised currently. Furthermore, the President did not specify what he would do to fix the problem. He again urged creation of private Social Security accounts. But those would be of no help whatsoever in shoring up the system's finances, as acknowledged earlier in the day by a senior Bush administration official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity:

FDR signing ActPresident Clinton signing RET bill


12 Comments so far ↓

  1. Anonymous says:

    All well said, why would anyone dismantle the most successful program in the history of the country?

  2. Anonymous says:

    I'm not sure but haven't Democrats said in the past that Social Security was in trouble? Anyway, I don't think that the President is right on this one. I just don't trust Wall Street and Social Security has proven to be a good program.

  3. Anonymous says:

    AARP says Bush's Social Security plan a risky investment

    The head of the 35-million-member organization, who faced harsh criticism for supporting the White House-backed Medicare prescription drug provision two years ago, said the creation of private investment accounts “is risky, hugely expensive and unnecessary.”

    Could you please add this link to your list, I don't know how to do that and I assume you would prefer that we leave that for you to do.  AARP Magazine

    Serving the needs and interests of people 50 and over with topics including health, money, food, family, Medicare, entertainment and retirement.
  4. Anonymous says:

    What President Clinton wanted was totally different.

  5. Anonymous says:

       One must wonder why the Neo-Cons are so set on Enroning Social Security. They have set out to destroy it were any lie they can even distorting the words of the greatest President FDR!

    Olbermann: Hume, FOX News committed “premeditated, historical fraud” in distorting FDR

    MSNBC host Keith Olbermann recognized Media Matters for America for documenting FOX News Washington managing editor Brit Hume and other pundits distorting a quote by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in order to claim that the former president would have supported privatizing Social Security. Olbermann described the initial distortion by Hume — which prompted Air America Radio host Al Franken to call on Hume to resign — as a “premeditated, historical fraud.”

    Nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, FOX News Live anchor David Asman, and CBS News Sunday Morning anchor and CBS Radio Network host Charles Osgood have all echoed Hume's false suggestion that FDR favored eventually “supplant[ing]” government funding of Social Security with private accounts, as President Bush has proposed. In fact, what Roosevelt was arguing for “supplanting” was government-funded pensions set up for Americans who were already too old in 1935 to contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security system. Roosevelt advocated “voluntary contributory annuities” — which differ significantly from private accounts — to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits and never proposed replacing Social Security benefits with private accounts. Click here to read more.

  6. Anonymous says:

    That is just sick! How can someone twist the truth like that? I just wonder if Brit Hume was just reading what someone else prepared.

  7. Anonymous says:

    If it wasn't correct it probably was someone who prepared the script. If he had it right or not we have to do something about SS.

  8. Anonymous says:

    What happen to personal responsibility? Did the Republicans except that argument about Rather?

  9. Anonymous says:

    The answer is no, but most of the Republicans have two sets of rules. I don't think that they think about it much because even the honest one are that way.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Why do republicans want to dismantle Social Security? The reason, I think, is pretty clear.
    It has been acknowledged as the greatest program to ever come out of the government, and happened under the Democrats. The republicans don't want to see Democrats succeed at anything. They are jealous because their accomplishments and successes have been so few and far between. I

  11. Anonymous says:

    I don't see it that way, I think that the President is trying to save Social Security. What is wrong with that?

  12. Anonymous says:

        It maybe even more sinister than that, for it may relate back to the original sin. Mankind fell when they desired to be their own gods, in Genesis 3:5 the devil temps mankind by saying

Leave a Comment