Skip to main content

View Diary: No, cutting Social Security won't make young people love Democrats (119 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anyone who thinks SS supports the (10+ / 0-)

    "wealthiest" and "most subsidized" just doesn't understand the math. And deserves to be pitied rather than argued with.

    Nuff said. Life is short enough.

    SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

    by Bruce Webb on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 03:14:40 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Facts are facts. (0+ / 0-)

      Retirees get more federal dollars than any other generation. Social Security taxes are being taken from the working poor and a portion of that money goes to the comfortably retired who don't need it. I know it's good propaganda to pretend that each and every Social Security recipient is living on the poverty line and desperately needs it, but we all know that isn't the case.

      •  Caps and contributions (4+ / 0-)

        The working poor get a equitable deal lifetime due to the PIA structure. The cap insures that the wealthy never take out that much and certainly get a smaller replacement value.

        The only question is whether you are some sort of progressive not understanding you are mindlessly repeating AEI and Cato talking points or some sort of right wing troll mindlessly repeating them or some Right wing troll repeating them with malice aforethought.

        Your "facts is facts" translates to "chump?" "fool?" or "knave?"

        No we don't "know" what you do and people who have run the numbers understand that means testing the actual folks who "don't need it" which we could say is people earning over household median in retirement would close 10% or less of the actuarial gap.

        Me? I am betting you fall into 'Chump'. Though your deployment of 'propaganda' argues for 'Knave'. So maybe the consensus will fall on 'Fool'. Call it Hobson's Triple Choice.

        SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

        by Bruce Webb on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 03:56:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, you can't refute what I wrote. (0+ / 0-)

          That's why you're name calling and questioning my motives. The facts make you uncomfortable. Yes, I'm aware of your caveats. The fact remains that Social Security is a regressive tax that punishes the working poor and gives some of that money to people who need it far less. Replacing it with a progressive tax with benefits going to those who actually need it would be more progressive than what we have now. It was never a savings or investment program so let's stop pretending.

          •  Of course I can refute it (5+ / 0-)

            I have spent the last dozen years refuting it with links back to actual data tables and literally hundreds of blog posts at top econoblogs like Prof Mark Thoma's Economist View, three or four of the front pagers posts at EconoSpeak including Professor Barkley Rosser and PGL and SandwichMan, as well as on it's predecessor MaxSpeak. Or you could examine diaries here at dKos right back to 2004 or review the Angry Bear Social Security series of 2008-2010 (available at a Google near you).

            Or I could continue to spout a line of self-indulgent link rot and King of the Hill claims until I piled up enough crap to make the Good Humor man hurl.

            Which is basically what you are doing here with your claims except without the back trail.

            Social Security is not regressive. Not if you understand the math.

            Your proposals for a system based on Social Democratic principles are pretty compelling. For people totally ignorant of the actual politics in play during the 30s and through to today.

            Read Dean Baker's 1999 "The Phony Crisis"' Nancy Altman's "The Battle for Social Security" or Eric Laursen's recent "The People's Pension" for a clue about the actual history and politics of Social Security since 1934 (sic). Because those folk are among the nation's top supporters/defenders of Social Security and are totally respected by everyone who knows something about this topic. At least ON TOP of the Troll Bridge.

            Feel free to mention my name. Because they are all on a first name basis with me and think I am the RADICAL here.

            The only one pretending anything is you thinking you have a body of knowledge backing up your tired talking points. Learn something from experts (not necessarily to include me if you like) and come back with citations and numbers demonstrating the regressivness of the system and the political calculations that would lead you to believe it could be improved given 8 decades of actual history.

            Christ ANYONE can build Castles in the Sky. If you ignore the foundations needed.

            SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

            by Bruce Webb on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 04:36:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lots of words. No rebuttals. (0+ / 0-)

              I always find it a cute logical flaw when people respond to the regressive nature of the SS tax by bringing up how benefits are distributed. Those are two completely separate issues. Benefits could be distributed the same way with a different taxation method and vice versa. The SS tax is the most regressive federal tax. End of story. Cite red herring numbers about how it's distributed till you're blue in the face and none of them will change that reality. It punishes the working poor and some of that money goes to people who don't need it. Distribution is doubly irrelevant to the regressive nature of the tax because how benefits are distributed may change before current workers retire.

              Yes, I'm fully aware that SS was passed by allowing the middle class to believe they aren't taking welfare. That same political compromise is allowing many retirees to throw other welfare recipients under the bus while they proudly claim they themselves would never take welfare. It's a selfish, self-deluding and destructive compromise that has inevitably resulted in the erosion of the safety net for everyone other than retirees. No sale.

              •  Insurance is regressive (3+ / 0-)

                Social Security is Insurance

                The decision to call it a "tax" rather than a "premium" has to do with its mandatory nature but doesn't in itself change the structure of Social Security from 'insurance' to some socially provided public good that (under Social Democratic) principles should be paid for out of progressive taxation.

                Could Social Security and Medicare have been sold on Social Democratic grounds as pure income support and universal coverage? Fine make the case. Absent that arguments that draw on the hypothetical equity of a Social Welfare system that could have (in some alternative political universe) been enacted are logically empty.

                YOU might wish we were Sweden. I might wish we were Sweden. But there are historical reasons why the New Deal and the Great Society produced Social Insurance rather than Social Democracy.

                "If Wishes were Fishes, We Would All Cast Nets"

                And the root meaning of 'Utopia' is 'No Place'. Because smart Utopians keep an eye on political reality. And ANYONE can design a perfect theoretical system. Because 'Everything is Simple. if you Ignore the Complexities'

                SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

                by Bruce Webb on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:30:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Insurance or entitlement? (0+ / 0-)

                  Opinions differ, but as an insurance system, it's an expensive one.

                  I'm sure we agree about the historical founding of social security, but that doesn't bind us to continue the same regressive system that punishes the working poor. Continuing an unjust system simply because it's what you're used to is the definition of conservatism.

                  •  Yes it's insurance (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JeffW, lostinamerica, midwesterner

                    It's money that US workers pay in, then draw out in benefits when they reach retirement.  The SS Trust Fund only contains money that workers have contributed.  The federal government contributes nothing to it.

                    It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

                    by Betty Pinson on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:47:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site