Skip to main content

View Diary: Don't cut Social Security, expand it (105 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But the question is (5+ / 0-)

    where does the money come from to pay people increased benefits to stop working at 55?

    Right now what employed citizens pay is used to pay the meager benefits now.  And that, due to the Obama tax cuts and increased retirements of boomers, is not covering the cost of those benefits now.  Does this mean taxing at a higher rate? or borrowing to cover the cost?

    On a different point, "The Federal Reserve found that the typical household with workers aged 55 to 64 had a combined $120,000 in 401(k)’s and Individual Retirement Accounts."  Note how they coach this, workers 55 to 65 have $120k in 401k's.  

    I've had issues with that.  Workers 55 to 65 were in their late 30's and early 40's when the 401k's took off. They also tended to have it as an option along with a reduced pension. So they did not 'invest' like workers today.  What you need to look at is the amount a worker has in the 401k they have been paying into since 1994 and is only 43.  It will be close to $150,000 with another 20 years of growth and contributions to go. This makes the numbers less powerful for anyone not about to retire.

    of course the real problem with 401k's and IRA is what is known as the "Roth" versions.  Billions of dollars being sheltered tax free.  All the growth in a Roth is tax free.  Unlike a normal plan, where it is only taxed when you draw it out.  One of my employers has been doing its best to push the Roth401k plan they have over the normal plan.  

    Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

    by DrillSgtK on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 05:42:53 PM PDT

    •  The Money Must Be Found Even if You Privatize. (10+ / 0-)

      If there isn't the money to pay retirees from Social Security, because not enough people are working, then there will not be enough people to buy the stocks and bonds from retiring seniors who are flooding markets to fund their retirement privately.

      Either society can survive or it cannot. The cheapest way to do this is by government because it doesn't advertise, doesn't need to enrich investors, and doesn't need to pay half a billion to its executives.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 06:28:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The other reason Social Security (6+ / 0-)

        (and defined benefit pensions) are better than 401(k)s is that shared risk reduces the total amount of money required to provide the exact same benefits.

        If the money required to pay out benefits is pooled -- a concept known to trade guilds over 600 years ago -- the amount required to cover everyone is smaller than if every single person maintained their own savings.  In fact, depending on the way it is calculated, the amount is roughly 20-25% lower.

        Said another way:  The total saved in individual retirement plans would have to be saved in an amount 20-25% greater than the amounts paid into Social Security (or set aside in a defined benefit pension) to provide the same payout.

        Once you know that, why would anyone recommend that "privatized" or individual plans be used?   It would cost everyone more. And Wall Street would love that, of course.

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 07:35:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Expand them by (8+ / 0-)

      cutting defense spending (Mr. DrillSgt :) and corporate welfare, increasing taxes on the wealthy, including eliminating the cap. I know the latter makes SS solvent, and the former 2 should fund some growth.

      Also, if we had a trade policy we could establish some sanity on wages in this country, which would allow those who need SS most to put more in in the first place. We need international labor and environmental law and tariffs for countries who do not obey them. Get on a sane, level playing field rather than this race to the bottom to a standard of the greatest exploitation of people and the planet.

      One of the major differences between Democrats and Republicans is that the former have the moral imagination to see the moral dimension of financial affairs, while the latter do not. Some pragmatists are exceptions.

      by Words In Action on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 06:33:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If and when there is a shortfall, raise the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      payroll tax.

      They were doubled in the 1980's.

      Mollie

      "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 07:26:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm no. They went up 2 points (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musiccitymollie, elwior

        Not 2X.

        From 10.4 to 12.2 over the ten years after 1983.

        The "double" thing is just one of those Internet memes. And serves ironically to bolster the whole idea that SS is unsustainable since it got that much out of whack in the past. When it really wasn't that much out of whack in percentage terms ever.

        On the bright side the actuarial gap going forward is just over that same 2 points. And because we are far farther from real crisis than we were in 1983 (when the Trust Funds were weeks from depletion and not 20 years) the needed increases can be stretched out over 20 years or more. Even if we never touched the cap.

        But to repeat someone back in the chain just misread +2 as x2 and it spread among supporters and detractors of SS alike.

        socialsecuritydefender.blogspot.com - SocSec.Defender at gmail.com - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

        by Bruce Webb on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 09:00:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Historical FICA and SECA (Med Pt A) Rates (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musiccitymollie, elwior

          http://www.ssa.gov/...

          Not that the first columns are "each" for employer and employee to get to the 10.4 and 12.2 above.

          socialsecuritydefender.blogspot.com - SocSec.Defender at gmail.com - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

          by Bruce Webb on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 09:03:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  10.8 in 82-83, 12.4 now. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musiccitymollie, elwior

          That is not EVEN 2 points for Social Security in isolation.

          socialsecuritydefender.blogspot.com - SocSec.Defender at gmail.com - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

          by Bruce Webb on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 09:08:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, I got it from the Greenspan Commission (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gooderservice, elwior, tardis10

          report, but confused it with another statistic in the report, related to the 'delayed retirement credit.'  So I stand corrected.

          Actually, Mr. Mollie and I have paid the higher rate, since we've often paid the self-employed OASDI rate.  But, I've also been taxed at the regular employee rate, and I've been practically exempt from paying payroll taxes while participating in the old Civil Service retirement system.

          So my history of paying this tax is 'all over the place,' now that I think about it, LOL!

          I wish that I could post the many video clips that I made of Janice Gregory and the other Greenspan Commission staffers, before C-Span 'killed the code.'  They ran from 1:00 to 3-4:00 minutes, and were great to get out major points, in a very direct and authoritative manner.

          I hope that you get a chance to watch the video, Bruce.

          Don't take this to the bank, cause I actually only HEARD it the first time (and I wasn't fully engaged), but I believe that one of the forum participants commented that because the Cost of Living formulas had been tweaked in the past, all of us will draw approximately only half of what we would have drawn, had these many "tweaks" not been implemented.

          So, folks--all of you listen up, please, to see if I heard wrong.

          I intend to actually watch this video fully engaged this weekend, to see if I heard that statement correctly.

          And they added that the Cost of Living Index was "tweaked" substantially under President Clinton.  And I mean 'to the negative.'

          Funny, I don't even recall hearing about it. That's why we must all be vigilant.  

          You can bet your 'pooties,' folks, that I'll be watching very closely from now on. ;-D

          Mollie

          "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 09:52:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well I don't know about the CPI thing (3+ / 0-)

             It doesn't ring true to me for a lot of reasons. For one thing I have been closely following SS policy since those Clinton years and it doesn't match up well with CBO estimates that the real value (measured in basket of goods terms) of scheduled benefits projects to be 180% of today by the end of the 75 year actuarial period. I mean that wouldn't seem to be consistent with a lot of past higgery-jiggery of past COLAs, particularly since they have been adjusted using the same CPI measures used to adjust most everything else (hence the additional harm by switching all of that to Chained CPI). If the overall measure was that far off you would have seen ramifications everywhere and not just in SS benefits.

            And while it is sorta vulgar to drop names without permission, I happen to be on good terms with a number of top staffers from the Greenspan Commissiom and if you like could confirm the impressions you got from Janice Gregory. Or help dispell them. In any case I would be quite interested in hearing a report of your re-listen of those clips.

            Because we are on the same side here. I just have kind of a fetish about precise use of numbers related to SS. Mainly because the Bad Guys misuse and distort them, and I think we Defenders do ourselves no favors by misstating them by accident or otherwise. Because by and large the real numbers strongly support our case.

            socialsecuritydefender.blogspot.com - SocSec.Defender at gmail.com - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

            by Bruce Webb on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 11:15:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, as I mentioned above, I plan to watch this (4+ / 0-)

              video this weekend.  (I was listening on XM radio the other day when I heard the replay, and was also taking care of other matters.  Which is why I said allow me a 'relisten,' and or asked others to listen up, if they get a chance first.)

              There were no Greenspan Commission staffers on the forum, but one of the former staffers, Virgina something, did introduce herself and either ask a question, or make a statement.

              But nothing that was said at the 2010 forum that Gregory et al held (and that I had the embedded video of, until C-Span killed the code) had anything to do with the Chained CPI (that I recall, anyway).  The little clips that I cut simply addressed basic precepts and facts, but were helpful due to the speaker's 'credentials.'
              '
              It was the video above, with Dean Baker and Stephen Goss, the Chief Actuary for Social Security, and I believe 3 or 4 other folks, including the moderator, that went into a great deal of detail regarding many, if not all of the former 'price index' formulas, etc.

              And Mr. Goss talked about terms like 'standard of living' increases and 'pure price' increases, 'modified price increases,' and the newer 'price index for the elderly.'

              I'll just have to give it a more thorough look and listen, Bruce.  But one of the speakers definitely stated that during Clinton's administration, there was a tinkering with the formula for measuring inflation.  And, it was not to the consumers advantage.

              I will listen and carefully transcribe that portion, as well.

              I found the chart of the OASDI rates from the inception of Social Security, and thought that I said that I accept those rates (or yours, whichever).  I found in the Greenspan Commission report what I confused with the increase.

              So I'll refer to that chart (it was on the Social Security website) when I make reference to the payroll tax increase in the future.  I agree that accuracy is important.  I source pretty much everything that I say.  I saw where I picked up the wrong statistic, when I checked the Greenspan Commission Report tables.

              Thanks for your reply.  I'll listen up good to the video that I posted.  

              Hopefully, it will shed some light on this "critter" called the Superlative or Chained CPI.  ;-)

              Mollie

              "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

              hiddennplainsight

              by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 12:39:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Virginia Reno of NASI n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                musiccitymollie

                socialsecuritydefender.blogspot.com - SocSec.Defender at gmail.com - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

                by Bruce Webb on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:49:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That would be her. (I recognized her voice, which (0+ / 0-)

                  is rather distinct, IMO).

                  I've just checked at a couple of other blogs where I post heavily, and again, 'killing the code' made the embedded videos 'collapse.'

                  They have also killed the "link."

                  However, there appears to be a provision to "Tweet" the video.

                  I post Tweets regularly several other blogs, but have not been able to post a Tweet here, for some puzzling reason.

                  Is there anyone out there who can point me to a "DKos Tweet Primer" (for lack of a better description, LOL!), please.

                  I really have some valuable clips to share, if only I can figure out "how" to display a Tweet at this blog.

                  Here's a stunning statistic, Bruce, that bears getting out at a time that the Administration is threatening further cuts of ANY dimension.

                  I have Ms. Janice Gregory of the NASI (National Academy Of Social Insurance) on video clip, saying this:

                  According to Ms. Janice Gregory, President, National Academy of Social Insurance, Social Security benefits are already going down in the future (without further cuts).

                  Benefits are modest, approximately $14,000 annually.

                  After paying Medicare premiums, the Social Security "replacement rate of lifetime average earnings" in 2010, was 39%.

                  By 2030, it will be 32%.

                  Neither of these rates count "taxing" Social Security benefits, so it understates the problem.

                  Please, if anyone can point me toward a "help" resource that shows me the procedure for posting "Tweets," I would be most grateful.  I have followed instructions from at least one very gracious commenter here (when I put out an SOS months ago), but they didn't work, and I made at least twenty attempts.  [And have never had a problem at any other blog.  It's truly puzzling.  And it's defnintely hampering my ability to share videos, etc.]

                  Thanks.

                  Mollie

                  "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                  hiddennplainsight

                  by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 09:27:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Seems like Janice is explaining Medicare's (0+ / 0-)

                    impact on Social Security via Part B premiums if cost controls are not successfully imposed rather than effects of COLA as such.

                    Which of course is something all supporters of Social Security can agree on, from Dean Baker and Paul Krugman on the economist side to Nancy Altman and the many others on the advocacy side, to the extent there is anything to "entitlements crisis' it is in the cost growth of the health care sector generally which effect Medicare specifically.

                    And as I noted above or somewhere in the last couple days, Medicare premiums are simply eating up even the inadequate COLAs that exist, particularly for lower income beneficiaries.

                    Another argument for working up a full CPI-E index to track the real inflation experienced by actual seniors. Because out of pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries starting but not stopping with front end Part B and D premiums hit those pocket books hard.

                    But at the risk of seeming just stubbornly contrarian I don't see this Medicare spillover effect as necessarily attacking the current structure of Social Security considered in isolation. Which per the numbers just needs a modest adjustment of revenues in much the same way as FICA has been adjusted many times before. (See FICA/SECA table linked above).

                    socialsecuritydefender.blogspot.com - SocSec.Defender at gmail.com - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

                    by Bruce Webb on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:23:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not concerned about 'the current structure' (0+ / 0-)

                      of Social Security.

                      My only concern is to preserve benefits at the minimum at the current level.  And hopefully raise them for the bottom three quintiles (or so).

                      The MAIN POINT of posting that video (or the brief transcript, here) is to let folks BE AWARE OF HOW 'DINKY' THE REPLACEMENT VALUE IS, AND WILL BE.
                      I assure you, many folks, particularly those who have no other retirement income, will be outraged when they discover how little RV their Social Security benefit will provide them in their retirement.
                      39% and 32%--You've got to be kidding, LOL!
                      Many folks think that the RV is MUCH higher now. And they certainly (including myself) had no clue just how much it will be dropping over the next few years.

                      That's all that I was trying to achieve.  ;-)

                      Mollie

                      "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                      hiddennplainsight

                      by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:37:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  One more thing. My point in posting Gregory's (0+ / 0-)

                      short transcript from the video clip (that no longer works) was NOT ABOUT the Superlative CPI.  That was 'comments ago.'  You could say--that's history, LOL!

                      Seriously, I  have numerous clips that I will post the transcripts of, and Gregory barely touches on CPI.  

                      Heck, I'm much more concerned with getting out information on things like the extraordinarily puny 'replacement rate' of Social Security, etc., than all the technical aspects of the Chained CPI.

                      Again, most 'lay folks' care about the overall impact of these policies, not the minutia.

                      I also have short clips of several politicians and union leaders acknowledging that they support the "Chained CPI," which are embeddable or 'linkable.'

                      I will also be posting some of them (not all).

                      If someone can help me on the "Tweet" problem, I'll be able to provide more video links, at least.

                      Mollie

                      "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                      hiddennplainsight

                      by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 11:45:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  40% of Replacement is the official target (0+ / 0-)

                        The gold standard of Defined Benefit pension plans was 60% after 30 years. This for State and local workers NOT covered by Social Security. Back in the day the idea was that a career civil servant would be able to burn his 30 year mortgage papers on the same day he picked up his first pension check and that relieved of the biggest part of housing costs would be able to coast into retirement being able to afford the same or better basket of goods after retirement as before. And maybe a lake house and a boat or a snow-bird time share in Florida or Arizona.

                        I don't know of anyone ever who imagined that Social Security was going to provide the same level of retirement security that a union man or woman working for GM or the Feds was going to get from their pension, from that perspective 60% would represent a CEILING of expectations.

                        You suggest that 39% is a "you gotta be kidding" level and that 32% is an outrage. But historically I am just not seeing it. For example a quick Google on replacement ratios brought this longish study from the Social Security Bulletin
                        Income Replacement Ratios in the Health and Retirement Study. Scrolling down to the data table it doesn't seem that the bottom 25% ever got more than a 40% replacement ratio.

                        Now we can agree that this is not ADEQUATE. But I am not seeing that it is NEW or DETERIORATING. Which rightly or wrongly was my take away from your comments.

                        socialsecuritydefender.blogspot.com - SocSec.Defender at gmail.com - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

                        by Bruce Webb on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:16:10 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Another SS Bulletin Study 2004 (0+ / 0-)

                          Comparing Replacement Rates Under Private and Federal Retirement Systems

                          This study is kind of pimping add on accounts for Federal workers but also shows that replacement ratios from SS alone range from 50% for low income workers to 30% for workers earning near the cap (Chart 1).

                          socialsecuritydefender.blogspot.com - SocSec.Defender at gmail.com - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

                          by Bruce Webb on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:23:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Hey, Bruce, let me clarify something . . . (0+ / 0-)

                          Here's a paragraph excerpted from a blogger's comment on another blog site that I frequent (I've deleted the blog info and her user name.  Her comment was in response to Atrios' diary about increasing Social Security benefits.)

                          "Duncan does a good job of pointing out that there are some things that must be handled collectively. He needs to add that in many other wealthy countries a lot of expenses are handled by the state such as healthcare, higher education, excellent transportation, cheap heat, child care. In Germany, I believe, it used to be that the German retired with about 67%? of his salary for a pension whereas our Social Security only pays for about 47%, if that. If Americans were paid a living wage and didn't have all the other expenses, then, yes, they might be able to save some extra. But the system is rigged against them from the get go."
                          My point being that many folks have a misunderstanding of the replacement value of their Social Security.  I also believed that it was higher than Ms. Gregory stated.  And if the very sharp blogger whom I quoted above can be 'off' that much in her estimation of the replacement value, I don't hold out much hope that the public at large has an accurate impression of this, at all.

                          Obviously, the PtB won't point this out to the general public what the replacement rate equivalency is, when they are beginning the process of cutting our social safety net.

                          In one of the video clips, Ms. Gregory states verbatim:

                          snip

                          "And all the other things that they had counted on--cheap healthcare, pensions, home values, and even jobs, are much less secure than they were in 1983."
                          snip

                          After all, how does one expect the citizenry to 'push back' on detrimental policies, when they are clueless as to the actual policies that they are subjected to?

                          BTW, I've figured out how to get the links to the videos to work.  Now I going to continue to tinker with the "Tweets," since they are more attractive-looking than a hyperlink.  ;-)

                          My self-appointed 'gig' is to advocate for benefits.

                          I mostly plan to use the actual words (from transcripts) or the spoken words from videos of expert.  I won't even post an opinion with these media, for the most part.  Just a sentence or two of introduction of the speakers and the topics.

                          I'll let each commenter decide for themselves whether or not they consider the benefit to be sufficient, or fair.

                          I figure that folks can't possibly be in the position to make an informed decision as to whether or not they do, or do not favor cuts to the social insurance programs, unless they have a decent understanding of their Social Security benefits.

                          So, if I can help with that--my goal will be fulfilled.  ;-)

                          Mollie

                          "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                          hiddennplainsight

                          by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:25:42 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Don't miss the forest for the trees (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musiccitymollie

              The only purpose for the CPI change is to cut benefits and they brag about over $100B is savings.  We're not reforming anything.  The only purpose is to reduce the cost of the programs through finding a calculation that results in cutting benefits substantially.  

              If you get lost in the woods on the technicalities of the calculation you are missing the purpose of the forest.  If this calculation didn't result in billions in benefit cuts, they'd find one that did.

              •  What does "doubling FICA" in the 80s (0+ / 0-)

                Have to do with Chained-CPI? Particularly when it is factually wrong?

                There are Bad Guys out there who know all this stuff inside and out, and while feeling free enough to distort stuff for their own purposes, will jump down your throat if you miss something.

                A little anecdote. Back in 2005 when I was even less known in SS circles than today I was hanging around DeLong's place when he turned a post over to guest Andrew Samwick who was pushing an early version of LMS (the Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick Non-Partisan Social Security Reform Plan), in short a privatization plan.

                In the course of the sale Samwick made the unqualified claim that the current payroll gap was 3.5%. Which seemed odd since the most recent number for the standard 75 year window was then 1.92%. But Samwick needed the extra room and more to make his plan numbers add up.

                So I issued a cheeky "Whence 3.5% Samwick?" only to be slapped down online by Andrew AND upbraided as a rude fuck by DeLong via e-mail. Because in 2003 the Trustees (as I learned later under pressure of two specific members of the SSAB) had introduced a NEW actuarial window, this one measured over the I shit you not Infinite Future Horizon which in 2005 was indeed 3.5%.

                Now these days when I see those numbers I can counter-attack by explaining how stupid and self-serving Infinite Future is. Rather than just claiming, as I did, that Samwick had just made a dumb mistake.

                But no I just walked right into THAT one. And in the process made myself look like a fool in front of DeLong and his readers. At a time when Brad was pretty much the only straight center-left econoblog of influence out there. By not recognizing Samwick's slight of hand.

                Some of those trees are pretty important tactically for soldiers fighting on the ground. Even if the strategist-general just sees them as a forest on his battle map.

                socialsecuritydefender.blogspot.com - SocSec.Defender at gmail.com - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

                by Bruce Webb on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 09:08:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bottom line is that no one even need the numbers. (0+ / 0-)

                  I rarely mention them.  They're beside the point, because anyone can come up (usually) with a chart or table that counters a claim.  Which is why I almost never even take that up [plus, it's terribly boring, ;-)].

                  It's "the policies" that matter.

                  That why the President's own Fiscal Commission's proposals (Bowles-Simpson's The Moment Or Truth) is what I attempt to get out there.

                  That's what matters--not statistics, which the average guy could care less about, anyway.

                  I'm working on posting excerpts of a white paper, which demonstrate a great similarity between the privatization of Mexico's Social Insurance Program, to the Bowles-Simpson proposals.

                  Bowles-Simpson's proposals appear to have taken hugh swaths of their proposal from 'the Mexican Model.'

                  Have to wonder if that is one reason [aside from NAFTA] that so many Mexican nationals fled Mexico, after the privatization of their system in the 1990's.
                  The so-called reform of the Mexican system made it incredibly difficult to qualify for any benefit, unless you had years and years of qualifying work record (same thing B-S demands, really).

                  And before this so-called reform, they had a period of ten years or so, much like our present system.

                  I have got to put more emphasis on the changes in the B-S proposal which greatly effect low-income folks.>

                  I will also be posting portions or excerpts of The Moment Of Truth and an excellent chart I found on this, very soon.


                  Mollie

                  "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                  hiddennplainsight

                  by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:27:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I just saw your question about FICA above. (0+ / 0-)

                  A commenter above seemed to indicate that he had concerns about NOT IMPLEMENTING the Superlative CPI, because of costs to his children and grandchildren.  That's what he stated.

                  So, my answer was 'if you're worried about that [the financing of Social Security], support raising the FICA tax, as opposed to cutting benefits by implementing the Superlative CPI.'

                  And then I mentioned that the payroll taxes had been raised in the past, including as a result of the Greenspan Commission's recommendations.

                  That's the context for the discussion.  

                  At any rate, I was trying to address his concerns, not my own.  ;-)

                  Mollie

                  "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                  hiddennplainsight

                  by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 11:02:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I agree, greenbell. The reason that I would (0+ / 0-)

                suggest listening to this video is because they discuss how much we've ALREADY been scr**ed by these "technical changes."

                Have to admit that the PtB are very creative in their memes and their attempts to shortchange 'the American people,' eh?

                Mollie

                "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                hiddennplainsight

                by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:03:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, folks. Meant to say bet your "patooties," (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, maryabein

            as in a rat's patootie.  My sincere apologies.

            Mollie

            "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

            hiddennplainsight

            by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 12:15:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  They were nearly doubled for the self-employed (0+ / 0-)

          That may be where the meme came from.

          Thom Hartmann has been pushing the "doubled" meme hard., but then Thom is prone to wackadoodle bullcrap.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:45:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hey, quit listening to that 'sell-out' when he (0+ / 0-)

            moved to D.C.

            Hartmann has always been a name-dropper, and to some extent, a blowhard.  [Although years ago, he was one of my favorite radio hosts.]  He's not that well-informed on the social insurance programs.  

            I did call his show enough several years back enough that Louise knew my voice.  ;-)  

            Trust me--he doesn't have a clue beyond talking points, on some issues.

            So, no.  I definitely don't get info from him, LOL!

            Mollie

            "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

            hiddennplainsight

            by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 11:51:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  You assume the guy 43 will remain fully (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musiccitymollie

      employed.  That's the real problem for people over 45.  Your 401K may be on track until you hit a few bouts of unemployment at an age when it takes longer to get another job.  We haven't only lost pension security.  We've lost employment security.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site