Schumer: Republicans Are 'Plotting a War on Seniors'

[CSM]

They didn't survive well.  That was the political impetus *FOR* social security in the first place.  Your first paragraph is therefore an invalid argument.

Didn't survive well?  Except that the US population of the day lead the world in transitioning from an agricultural economy to the industrial age.  We gave the world electricity, indoor plumbing, vaccines, the radio, and we connected the east and west for trade! 

In fact, your argument that their "standard of living" led to SS is completely wrong.  The progressives of the day sold it as "only a safety net for the very poorest of society."  It was only intended for the very few.  In fact, it was set up to start paying benefits to workers after they passed the age of 65 years.  This was significantly beyond the average life expectancy, so by that standard it wasn't even intended to be a "retirement investment."  It was really intended for the few that lived well beyond their expected life and were no longer capable of working.

In addition, the tax rate was 2% and the taxable income was originally capped at $3K, or $50K in today's dollars.  Which indicates that it was sold as having a very small impact to the national budget.  Now we are at a 13% rate that is capped at $125K (if I recall correctly.)  That means the maximum SS tax on an individual has grown from $1,000 (in today's dollars) to $16,250, which has been 1,625% increase in the burden placed on an individual. 

What does all of that mean?  It means that the vast majority of the population of this nation was very prosperous, when taken into context of the time and in comparison to the ROW.  So, FDR and his fellow progressives, played the emotional game of taking care of the very few people that could not take care of themselves and folks bought into it.  It was the ultimate "start it low to get it entrenched" strategy of progressivism.

All of that and the reality of the program is that it has caused much more harm than any help it has rendered.

[Emjay]

You have no conception at all of how wrong you are.

Yes, the government has not handled the program well.  But considering inflation, the rate of payments into the system is too high but hardly outrageous.

I know a lot of seniors.  I don't know any rich ones but I don't know any really poor ones either.  Without Social Security, their lives would be much worse.  Many of them would be living in poverty.

The system needs to be reformed but not abandoned.  No matter what you think of Social Security it is an entrenched part of American economy that cannot, cannot be abandoned without something very good in place.

It would be easy to institute a reform that would give workers at a certain age an option to invest in a private fund of their choice (a vetted, honest and secure fund) instead of Social Security.  This would have to be mandatory ... one or the other. There would have to be restrictions... they could not draw on their fund until they retired or reached a certain age.  The only hard part of this simple idea is passing it.

Too many people are terrified that it would somehow interfere with their benefits (or those of their parents who they would otherwise have to support).  There would have to be a lot of education done by someone like Ronald Reagan or Ted Cruz.

[HonestJohn]

Didn't survive well?  Except that the US population of the day lead the world in transitioning from an agricultural economy to the industrial age.  We gave the world electricity, indoor plumbing, vaccines, the radio, and we connected the east and west for trade! 

In fact, your argument that their "standard of living" led to SS is completely wrong.  The progressives of the day sold it as "only a safety net for the very poorest of society."  It was only intended for the very few.  In fact, it was set up to start paying benefits to workers after they passed the age of 65 years.  This was significantly beyond the average life expectancy, so by that standard it wasn't even intended to be a "retirement investment."  It was really intended for the few that lived well beyond their expected life and were no longer capable of working.

In addition, the tax rate was 2% and the taxable income was originally capped at $3K, or $50K in today's dollars.  Which indicates that it was sold as having a very small impact to the national budget.  Now we are at a 13% rate that is capped at $125K (if I recall correctly.)  That means the maximum SS tax on an individual has grown from $1,000 (in today's dollars) to $16,250, which has been 1,625% increase in the burden placed on an individual. 

What does all of that mean?  It means that the vast majority of the population of this nation was very prosperous, when taken into context of the time and in comparison to the ROW.  So, FDR and his fellow progressives, played the emotional game of taking care of the very few people that could not take care of themselves and folks bought into it.  It was the ultimate "start it low to get it entrenched" strategy of progressivism.

All of that and the reality of the program is that it has caused much more harm than any help it has rendered.

You missed the point.

All that is true.

And yet, there was enough popular support for Roosevelt to push through Social Security.  For people saw the Great Depression and understood that there, but for the grace of G-d, go I.

That America needed something to protect the worst off from homelessness and starvation.  Which many were experiencing at that time.

[Sanguine]

You missed the point.

All that is true.

And yet, there was enough popular support for Roosevelt to push through Social Security.  For people saw the Great Depression and understood that there, but for the grace of G-d, go I.

That America needed something to protect the worst off from homelessness and starvation.  Which many were experiencing at that time.

Be careful in attributing Roosevelt's motivations.  As with most left-leaning progressives, the action hides the real motivation.

[CSM]

You have no conception at all of how wrong you are.

Yes, the government has not handled the program well.  But considering inflation, the rate of payments into the system is too high but hardly outrageous.

I know a lot of seniors.  I don't know any rich ones but I don't know any really poor ones either.  Without Social Security, their lives would be much worse.  Many of them would be living in poverty.

The system needs to be reformed but not abandoned.  No matter what you think of Social Security it is an entrenched part of American economy that cannot, cannot be abandoned without something very good in place.

It would be easy to institute a reform that would give workers at a certain age an option to invest in a private fund of their choice (a vetted, honest and secure fund) instead of Social Security.  This would have to be mandatory ... one or the other. There would have to be restrictions... they could not draw on their fund until they retired or reached a certain age.  The only hard part of this simple idea is passing it.

Too many people are terrified that it would somehow interfere with their benefits (or those of their parents who they would otherwise have to support).  There would have to be a lot of education done by someone like Ronald Reagan or Ted Cruz.

If you go back to my original posting on the subject, you will see that I proved that simply by investing the current 13% rate throughout their working lives , that these seniors you mention would have accumulated a great deal of wealth.  The system has made them much worse off than they otherwise would have been.  However, the ruling class is perfectly happy with us arguing over the level of poverty these folks get to experience.  As we argue about the thickness of our chains, the ruling class is able to maintain their power over us.

I also agreed that it can't be ripped up for those that do not have time to invest, and benefit from compounding.  The current recipients would be stuck in the system, as bad as it is.  There would be no fairness, or ability to stop it for them.  However, it is completely immoral to continue the theft of that wealth from those that do have time to invest and benefit from long term compounding. 

As I demonstrated in that post, if someone invested the 13% during their working career and never got a raise, they would still have a nest egg of $2.3M.  According to what appears to be a reliable source, the average monthly payment in social security benefits for this year is $1,341 per month.  That seems low to me, but someone who only earns minimum wage for their entire career would be receiving very little in SS payments.

Let's do the math:  The average life expectancy of someone born in 1950 was 68.2 yrs (avg all races, all sexes.)  That means that the average person that is 65 in 2015 and retired, would receive SSIP payments for 3.2 years or 38.4 months.  I'll be generous and round up to 39 total months.  39 x $1,314 = $51,246 USD in benefits received.  If you compare that to the potential return they could have had and you can see that this "average" person is $2.25M worse off because of SSIP. 

In other words, the mandating of the "investment" of 13% of your income in SSIP is stealing on average $2.25M in wealth from you!

Naturally, I will concede that these averages DO over generalize and that there are wild swings from those calculations.  However, the point remains.  This program does not benefit even the poor.  It makes them dependent and slaves to the ruling class. 

Your arguments today regarding Social Security, will be the arguments in 20 years regarding Obamacare.  By your own words, it is simply too entrenched, no matter how evil it is....

[LMAO]

You're preaching to the choir on liberty, Obamacare, and SS. I'm just saying that political realism is a thing that we need to deal with.

How about mathematical realism?

Math will and does always ultimately win

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

How about mathematical realism?

Math will and does always ultimately win

What about it?

[CSM]

You missed the point.

All that is true.

And yet, there was enough popular support for Roosevelt to push through Social Security.  For people saw the Great Depression and understood that there, but for the grace of G-d, go I.

That America needed something to protect the worst off from homelessness and starvation.  Which many were experiencing at that time.

Actually, this comment re-enforces my point.  The vast majority of the American people were personally prospering, in fact they were so prosperous that they were also very charitable.  However, the progressives were pushing for the "safety net for the very rare" instances when needed.  As a result, the populous was hoodwinked to believe the progressives of the day, it passed.  However, the program quickly grew and the populous was very angry at that rate of growth.  Today this program is all encompasing and in fact many treat it as an actual retirement program.  Yet, we still have homelessness and starvation. 

The American population was smart enough to have learned from that experience and when Medicare was foisted on them there was nearly a revolt.  Although the electoral revolt against Obamacare has been evident, the revolt against medicare at the time was astounding.  There were even some pols that had their cars surrounded by the elderly and damaged from walkers!

[Emjay]

If you go back to my original posting on the subject, you will see that I proved that simply by investing the current 13% rate throughout their working lives , that these seniors you mention would have accumulated a great deal of wealth.  The system has made them much worse off than they otherwise would have been.  However, the ruling class is perfectly happy with us arguing over the level of poverty these folks get to experience.  As we argue about the thickness of our chains, the ruling class is able to maintain their power over us.

I also agreed that it can't be ripped up for those that do not have time to invest, and benefit from compounding.  The current recipients would be stuck in the system, as bad as it is.  There would be no fairness, or ability to stop it for them.  However, it is completely immoral to continue the theft of that wealth from those that do have time to invest and benefit from long term compounding. 

As I demonstrated in that post, if someone invested the 13% during their working career and never got a raise, they would still have a nest egg of $2.3M.  According to what appears to be a reliable source, the average monthly payment in social security benefits for this year is $1,341 per month.  That seems low to me, but someone who only earns minimum wage for their entire career would be receiving very little in SS payments.

Let's do the math:  The average life expectancy of someone born in 1950 was 68.2 yrs (avg all races, all sexes.)  That means that the average person that is 65 in 2015 and retired, would receive SSIP payments for 3.2 years or 38.4 months.  I'll be generous and round up to 39 total months.  39 x $1,314 = $51,246 USD in benefits received.  If you compare that to the potential return they could have had and you can see that this "average" person is $2.25M worse off because of SSIP. 

In other words, the mandating of the "investment" of 13% of your income in SSIP is stealing on average $2.25M in wealth from you!

Naturally, I will concede that these averages DO over generalize and that there are wild swings from those calculations.  However, the point remains.  This program does not benefit even the poor.  It makes them dependent and slaves to the ruling class. 

Your arguments today regarding Social Security, will be the arguments in 20 years regarding Obamacare.  By your own words, it is simply too entrenched, no matter how evil it is....

Okay, I am now officially ignoring you on this subject because you are insane.  It is a known fact, and I did not disagree with you, that people would be better off putting the mandated funds into private investments of their own.

But until such a system is installed ... never mind, you are not worth arguing with.

[HonestJohn]

Be careful in attributing Roosevelt's motivations.  As with most left-leaning progressives, the action hides the real motivation.

That was not ascribing motivation to Roosevelt.  It was illustrating the reason voters had for supporting his push for social security.

[txradioguy]

Be careful in attributing Roosevelt's motivations.  As with most left-leaning progressives, the action hides the real motivation.

He was motivated more by the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" more than he was motivated to help the truly downtrodden Americans of the day.