TIO-Re: A new low for Rush Limbaugh (if that's not redundant)...

[Silkie]

There is no Social Security; it was raided and spent by failed politicians.

[quadraphonic]

Quadraphonic you miss my point.  The conservatives, ie Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/Ingraham, etc, etc, all keep chanting that all government programs are failed, etc.  That is simply not true.  Social Security has operated for 74 years as originally designed by FDR's New Deal.  I can't think of any other program, be it governmental or in industry that has worked that well for as long.  This is a thorn in the backsides of the GOP who hate this popular Democrat program and have tried since the 1930's with the Liberty League to get rid of it.

Yes, Congress, both Dem and GOP has failed to do the right thing, but that doesn't make the actual program a failure or evil, a plan to destroy America, etc, etc.  There's been a lot of elderly folks who's lives have been far better, because FDR and his New Deal started Social Security.  So when you can convince the GOP mouthpieces on radio/TV to quit saying Social Security is a failure or a failed program, etc, then I'll quit calling it a success.

I admittedly don't have much sway over radio talk hosts, so you're probably going to be able to keep being wrong about that "it's a success" thing.

[MikefromDelaware]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  From where I sit, the Social Security plan has done what it was designed to do in 1932. 

Problem for Republicans and Conservatives is, if they admit that this "evil socialistic insurance program" that was designed by the "evil socialist FDR, who also was a Democrat", was somehow successful then they've strayed away from the Conservative reservation and could be banished from the GOP and could even cause the loss of their membership to John Birch Society (are they still around?), the Heritage Foundation, the Tea Party, and Rush's 24/7 ditto head fan club with the official Rush Morse code telegraph ring for sending secret messages to other dittoheads.     

OK, seriously, all kidding aside, the bottom line is, you guys who are conservative GOP'ers and Libertarians don't think we should have any programs from the government other than the military, so even though Social Security has served America's elderly quite well since 1936 when the first benefits were paid out (74 years ago) you'll still say it was no good, because the whole idea of having ANY government program at all is totally contrary to how you guys view the world.  So given that obstacle in how we view things like this, we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

Good discussion, but we just see it very differently.

[quadraphonic]

I don't know about all that pigeonholing and hyperbole, and I can't claim to speak for all Republicans and conservatives and for that matter Democrats or liberals or whatever other group if they believe what you said they said they believe about "evil program" and such, but sure, it's a good discussion. No harm in discussing, even if it won't change anyone's minds.

Social Security was originally designed to provide for people who were close to or beyond their life expectancy averages. That's probably a pretty sustainable program, if the retirement age is adjusted from time to time, and other changes were made (besides politicians' just continually raiding it). But that would require some kind of rolling retirement age, and then there would be "donut holes" for some age groups in the program like there are in other programs.

I guess "success"  is pretty relative a term. Like comparing and contrasting various formats in a market and how they change, before or after they change, even when they aren't planning on changing.

SS was designed to work the way it was supposed to work. But even then, is that "success?" TAKING a percentage of people's incomes, and requiring empoyers to pitch in more, instead of just letting individuals save and invest that percentage on their own? 7% invested with a low-fee broker would probably result in more savings for most people than the return on a program with the bureaucracy of a Social Security, at least for most people. Anyone off the street should be able to "succeed" and keep things going longterm if TAKING money from every employee is a key part of their business model. It's still like a national lifestyle insurance policy than a "investment nest egg" it's portrayed as: if you live to collect it, you win; if you live to collect it for years, you really win; if you die at 62, well you gave it your best shot.

Compared to most of what government does, SS has been a longterm program. But is it's longterm status a result of its "success" or has it just been longterm because politicians didn't want to make their "take the money and run" policies official by taking what was already collected and not returning it? And would they have thrown in the towel somewhere along the line if it wasn't such an easy, already-established way to draw money from every employee in America? You have to wonder, through the years.

I could probably say it's been "a success" for a lot of people who have managed to last 10-20 years beyond their life expectancies. But even then, for some races and other groups, it's not really paid off for them. For whatever reasons they die younger, overall.

SS might get a blue ribbon and a certificate of participation, and a cupcake after the ceremony, but I still am not convinced it's a "success" and it's definitely not "successful."

[MikefromDelaware]

7% invested with a low-fee broker would probably result in more savings for most people than the return on a program with the bureaucracy of a Social Security, at least for most people.

There is the fly in the ointment for the GOP idea of let's have each person invest their money in the Stock Market and ditch Social Security.  Granted, there will be some who will do really well and make big time money (those who are doing that now see no problem with having everyone do it).  Unfortunately, many others won't.  Many older Babyboomers who were ready to retire during the last couple of years changed their minds and have kept working because they lost over half of their 401K invested money in the Stock Market.  Think how much worse this would have been for those folks had their Social Security money been riding in the Stock Market too. 

Another effect of those Babyboomers working longer, due to the great loss of savings in the Stock Market is, that there hasn't been as much attrition in the workplace as there normally would, which means those younger Babyboomers and Gen X'ers waiting to move into those higher level jobs as the older folks retire are stuck in place. With those folks not moving up there are far less Entry Level jobs for the young, so they are having even a harder time finding employment.

This would also happen if we created a rolling retirement age where we require seniors to work longer to get their Social Security.  The longer the elderly stay on the payroll, the less upward movement there will be in a given corporation, so less Entry Level jobs open up for the young.

Social Security is the safety net for many people.  The Stock Market is legalized gambling.  Most folks truly do not understand the Stock Market and literally are gambling with their future when they put money in stocks.  It sure does sound good on paper to say, everyone has the freedom to invest for their retirement.  That was the system we had prior to 1932 and many of our nation's elderly PRIOR to the Great Depression were living in poverty.  These weren't the lazy "welfare folks" we think of today (Welfare hadn't been invented yet), but hard working people who never had a lazy day in their life, but were old and no longer able to work.  That's what Social Security is attempting to do.  Be the safety net for those who need it in old age.  The rich and those middleclass folks who are lucky or do somehow understand the Stock Market may not need THEIR Social Security check each month, but there are many middleclass folks who've worked their entire lives and the poor, which includes the working poor, who do.

It seems to me, that possibly one reason to have both the employer contribute as well as require the employee to contribute is to insure the money goes towards retirement.  If left to most people, that would never happen and then we'd have a bunch of impoverished geezers like we had prior to 1936 when the first benefits were paid. 

I agree, Social Security is an insurance program, rather than an investment plan.  Just as with any insurance plan, it works if you have enough people paying into the plan to fund those who currently need the benefits of the insurance.  Up till now, that's worked fine, but now we're going to have to tweak the system somehow to adapt it to the current society we now live in.  As we discussed earlier, a society which is very different from the society of 1932, where we today have far fewer young people paying into the system to fund the elderly who are now receiving the benefits.