Why do so many business elites want to end Social Security?

Maybe they hate old people or something.

Maybe because no one seems to be able to handle it correctly?

Because most of them are big time capitalists and this program has socialist overtones.

It’s so easy to believe when you’re young that you’ll never get old. I wonder how “business elites” will feel when they get closer to retirement age and perhaps discover that the income sources they once believed would be waiting for them have disappeared.

@KNOWITALL What’s wrong with the way it’s being handled?
It pays for itself and is one of the most useful, successful, and popular programs ever put together.

@ETpro I think you’re onto something that it’s “money that could be theirs”. The CEO/parasite-class think of pretty much everything and everyone that way. If it isn’t theirs yet, it damn well should be.

Because it has to be paid with the pay they give to their slaves employees. To them, it is costs and decreases their all important profits.
Remember, Greed is Eternal.

Nobody is trying to get rid of Social Security. Just make it viable for the long run. Yet another massive distortion by some left wing blogger.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

“The Trustees project that the combined trust fund asset reserves at the beginning of each year will exceed that year’s projected cost through 2027.”

Republicans are absolutely trying to destroy Social Security. They won’t tell you that, because that makes them look like insensitive jerks. According to the trustees 2013 report, it is fine for the next 14 years. Then it might need a tweak.

They like to tell you they are trying to save it by slashing it now. Which only makes sense to rich people, or conservative talk radio cult members.

@TinyChi Nah, Don’t think so. Many of them are old guys. :-)

@KNOWITALL What’s so terrible about how Social Security is run. Works fine for me. And it’s been up and running well now for 76 years. How many other government programs can you name that can boast as much?

@rojo Well, it does have the word social in it. But then so does the antisocial personality disorder that gives us real people like the fictional Gordon “Greed is good” Gekko.

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room It’s true that the old elites already have many millions slaked away and are probably correct in their confidence that “I’ve got mine…”

@dabbler It certainly rang true with me. Thanks.

@ragingloli So it would seem.

@Jaxk What? The Republican party has hated Social Security from the day it was enacted in 1935. They have tried to repeal it, and when that proved impossible, they have tried again and again to privatize it.

“While no changes should adversely affect any current or near-retiree, comprehensive reform should address our society’s remarkable medical advances in longevity and allow younger workers the option of creating their own personal investment accounts as supplements to the system. Younger Americans have lost all faith in the Social Security system, which is understandable when they read the non- partisan actuary’s reports about its future funding status. Born in an old industrial era beyond the memory of most Americans, it is long overdue for major change, not just another legislative stopgap that postpones a day of reckoning. To restore public trust in the system, Republicans are committed to setting it on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control over, and a sound return on, their investments. The sooner we act, the sooner those close to retirement can be reassured of their benefits and younger workers can take responsibility for planning their own retirement decades from now.”
Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought They want it privatized, because then the cash is in the private banking system and stocks,and thus available to them, just as the blogger says.

Brainwashing by the cruel shareholder value paradigm.

@ETpro

I see absolutely nothing in the Republican platform that contradicts what I said. I know that words like Privatize, are flash points for liberals intended to spark an outcry, I just don’t get the same reaction. According to the Trustees, SS will have exhausted it’s funds by 2033. Also according to the trustees, acting sooner rather than later will give us more options to fix the problem. In other words if we wait until it is bankrupt we’ll have few options other than slashing benefits.

Obama has proposed a change in the cost of living adjustments (chained CPI) which will effectively reduce benfits by lowering the cost of living adjustments. I suppose I could scream that Obama is cutting my benefits but honestly I don’t have a problem that. It’s simply not enough to fix the problem. SS disability is in worse shape due to the dramatic rise in disability claims over the past couple of years. Everybody that knows anything about SS, knows we have a crisis coming. Why would we want to ignore it until the crisis hits?

Just a note on the privitization piece. As I recall, the Bush plan would put 5% of your contribution into your own hands. Much like a 401K, you would be able to invest it in anything you thought appropriate, government bonds, corporate bonds, mutual funds, etc. What I really liked about it was that it gave you a pice of your retirement that was yours. The government couldn’t spend it or take it away. In fact it would be available leave it to you wife or kids if you die. A pretty small piece granted and SS would still be there for the other 95% of your traditional SS. Personally, I’m a control freak. I like to have control over my own destiny. That sounds pretty good to me. But I understand that some will rail against it, that’s OK too. If you don’t want control of that small slice of your retirement don’t opt to take it.

I don’t see why this needs to be such a bomb throwing contest. We have a problem, let’s fix it.

@Jaxk “According to the Trustees, SS will have exhausted it’s funds by 2033”

Seriously. Did you read the next line? It said that starting in 2033, it would be only able to pay ¾ of what is currently scheduled until 2087. So where/how do you inflate that to bankrupt? What? Which one of us is not reading this correctly?

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought

Once we have exhausted the reserve, we will only be able to pay what comes in which means slahing benefits. As I said above “if we wait until it is bankrupt we’ll have few options other than slashing benefits.”

@Jaxk Seriously. 2033, 2087. You are an intelligent person, although conservative. You and I know if we raised the cap on SS benefit taxes with inflation, these are non problems. Do you just want to admit you don’t want to raise the cap with inflation because you don’t like taxes? Because I am pretty sure if we raise the cap with inflation there is no problem.

@Jaxk It would take a minor tweak on caps and benefits to the wealthy to keep the current benefits with COLA viable for the foreseeable future, past 2087. As things change beyond 2050, those alive then can worry about future tweaks. And privatizing Social Security not only would have wiped out retirees for 3 years or so during Bush’s Great Recession. It would also be turning over all retirement funds to exactly the people the blogger says want them. And you offer privatization plans as proof the blogger is all wrong. Your sense of the absurd is running at peak, today. That’s truly laughable.

@ETpro & @Imadethisupwithnoforethought

Peraonally I have no problem with raising the caps or even eliminating them. I’ve said that before. Seems like an easy fix which I believe would be enough to extend the life of SS, maybe indefinitly. It’s true that the Republican platform doesn’t support that solution but hey, we don’t agree on everything. It’s one of the few tax hikes I don’t believe would have an adverse affect on the economy.

At least we seem to agree that something needs to be done. It would be much easier to get it done if we weren’t conitually throwing bombs at each other and were instead focussing on where we may agree. You’ve both tried to assume and/or distort my position just to create a controversy where there is none.

As for privitization, the government currently has total control. That’s having the money where they like it so they can spend it anyway they like. I would rather have that control myself, not turn it over to whoever you and that idiot blogger thinks might get it.

@Jaxk I definitely agree something needs to be done. If it makes you feel better, I also agree that one of the things about Democrats in general that often drives me crazy is that they sometimes won’t admit when things are broken.

I’d also throw my full support behind the money in the Social Security trust fund being placed entirely out of reach of any other spending than what it was intended for. They shouldn’t even be able to borrow with it as collateral.

Can we agree, as a starting point, that SS is not a perfect plan and then maybe sit down and ractionally discuss ways to extend the life of, and perhaps even improve, the program?

I realize this is not how it is done in DC but perhaps if WE set a good example.

On reflection, maybe this ^^^ is not where we should start.

Perhaps we need to agree first on the purpose of the program, look at what, if anything, it has accomplished to date and then work from there.

@rojo Seems like an attainable starting point to me.

I think we need to re-frame the terms in the discussion, too. The Reagan-inspired use of the word “entitlement” has gotten peoples’ ideas of what SS is way warped from what SS actually is, an insurance program.
People understand insurance, they understand it’s not a handout, in the case of SS it’s something they paid their premium for with every paycheck.

@dabbler Very true. Back when I was a kid, the Carnegies and the Mellons and the Rockefellers were the entitled few. Now it’s people eking out an existence on food stamps because they don’t earn enough money to eat. Those lucky, entitled duckies.