Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

President Obama: Social Security Is Healthy -- There's No Need to "Save" It

By Dean Baker, Comment Is Free. Posted February 20, 2009.


Here's a cheap and effective form of economic stimulus -- tell America's baby boomers that their welfare benefits are safe.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Dean Baker

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The stimulus bill approved by Congress last week -- and due to be signed into law by President Obama tomorrow -- is a very good first step toward slowing the economy's decline, but it clearly is not large enough to accomplish the job. The U.S. economy will be seeing a loss of close to $2.6 trillion in demand over this year and next due to the collapse of housing and commercial property bubbles.

To counteract this collapse, Congress gave President Obama just over $700 billion in real stimulus. President Obama will have to make further requests from Congress to close the gap between what the economy needs and the stimulus package approved last week.

However, there is one step that President Obama can take to boost the economy without going through Congress: he can reaffirm his support for social security, and assure the baby boomers nearing retirement that he will not allow their benefits to be cut. If this huge cohort -- now in their late 40s, 50s and early 60s -- know that they can count on getting their promised benefits, they will feel more comfortable spending and supporting the economy at a time when it badly needs a boost.

The impact of social security on boosting consumption has long been touted by economists, most importantly Harvard economics professor Martin Feldstein, who had been Ronald Reagan's chief economist and is now an advisor to President Obama. (We will ignore the fact that his early results on this topic were driven by a programming error and that his later results disappeared with government data revisions.)

Feldstein claimed that workers spent more money during their working years than they would have otherwise because they expected to receive social security benefits when they retired. Therefore they had less need to save for retirement.

However, many workers may not be expecting to receive their social security benefits because there has been a concerted effort over the last quarter of a century to undermine confidence in the program and to cut the level of benefits. If workers question whether they will get the social security benefits they have paid for, they will feel more need to save rather than spend.

Workers are likely to be especially fearful about the prospects of getting their social security benefits now due to an all out assault on the program financed by billionaire banker Peter Peterson. Peterson has spent much of the last two decades trying to cut social security, Medicare and other benefits for the elderly. He recently contributed a billion dollars to a foundation bearing his name that is primarily committed to this goal.

Peterson's investment has paid off both in exposure from the media and more importantly attention from many members of Congress and their staffers. There are now dozens of senators, congress people and their staff running around Capitol Hill crafting creative new ways to cut social security. Baby boomers are right to fear that Peterson and his crew will take away their benefits.

While the idea of taking away benefits for which workers had already paid was always outrageous, it especially outrageous at a time when these workers have just seen much of the wealth in their homes and their retirement savings disappear in the housing crash and the collapse of the stock market. Making matters even worse is that fact that Peterson's friends in the financial industry, along with many of the economists who would like to cut Social Security, were the primary culprits in this disaster story.

But, President Obama can quickly get us beyond this attempted heist to the benefit of both older workers and the economy. He can simply assure the baby boomers that he will not allow the Peter Petersons of the world attack their benefits.

In fact, he should assure the baby boom cohorts that their social security benefits are safer than having money in the banks (even the government insured ones) and that they can plan accordingly. This may not lead to a huge burst of new spending, but baby boomers will spend more confidently through time knowing that they can count on getting the benefits they have earned.

President Obama will clearly have to take other steps to get the economy fully back on its feet, but a simple speech assuring baby boomers that social security is safe will be an important step in the right direction. This speech also has the additional advantage that, unlike other forms of stimulus, it doesn't cost anything. As we all know, talk is cheap.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy, obama, baby boomers, social security, bailout

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Barack ... I can't hear you !
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 20, 2009 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A simple straight forward request of Obama.

Will He " reaffirm his support for social security, and assure the baby boomers nearing retirement that he will not allow their benefits to be cut.

Zip Code Link to E~ Mail Obama

Ask Obama if he will support Social Security and not cut benefits ...

And while you are at it ask the same question of your House and Senate Members !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cut Through The Bullshit
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on Feb 20, 2009 2:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point of Social Security reform is not and never has been to "save" it. The point is to smash the cookie jar and eliminate Social Security forever.


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Biggest Ponzi Scheme
Posted by: 2thepoint on Feb 20, 2009 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It might be healthy but the trillions borrowed by the Federal Govt from SS is making it pretty sick.

Considering people are living longer than ever figured in the SS computations, and gov't dipping their hands into it they'd never be able to "fund" each individual account.

Doesn't sound so healthy to me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Biggest Ponzi Scheme Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Biggest Ponzi Scheme Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Biggest Ponzi Scheme Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Biggest Ponzi Scheme Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Biggest Ponzi Scheme Posted by: dockboy
» RE: Biggest Ponzi Scheme Posted by: Crazy H
Obama is doing a disservice to the elderly and even more so the African-Americans among them.
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 20, 2009 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans went out of their way to guarentee this man a second term. They'll be laughing at the way this trojan horse will undermine FDR's legacy big time. His two lovely and nice-looking daughters are gonna hate him when they get to be his age unless of course they're enjoying the rich life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Better yet
Posted by: fallsflyer on Feb 20, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Better yet, lower the full retirement age to 62 or maybe even 60. It would accomplish the point of this article four to six years sooner and would remove hoards of seniors/boomers from the job market and open their jobs to younger people who are now being laid off and are desparately in need of employment. It could also have the potential benefit to struggling businesses by allowing early retirement of expensive senior employees. I'm ready for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Better yet Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Better yet Posted by: fallsflyer
Social Security, Pay As You Go is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme ever
Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal on Feb 20, 2009 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Social Security makes Bernie Madoff look like an amateur.

Pete Peterson does not want to stop Social Security, he wants to make it solvent. He wants it to be able to pay its debt, give something back of all the billions that has been paid in.

Every developed country in the Western World (OECD) is facing the same problem with its different versions of Pay As You Go pension and Long Term Care benefits. There is not enough money to pay pensions and Long Term Care for the Baby Boomers. The benefit payments will completely drain all Social Security funds and there will be no possibility to raise tax revenue to pay for the Baby Boomers pensions and care.

So you can have a "apres moi le deluge" scenario were the Baby boomers says "f**ck you I paid my social security taxes and I want my money now, I don't care if you become poor when you retire" and the working, family raising population saying "F**ck you, you are the richest and wealthiest generation ever, you can pay for it yourself, you get nothing.". (80% of all income and wealth is owned by those over 55). A generational war.

The Western World will have to do what Sweden did. Fully fund social security, make it defined contribution (ended Pay As You Go), and partially privatize it. (75 % of social security taxes goes to your own account but owned and guaranteed by the government, 25 % go to a 401k plan, an investment account in your own name but under social security.

In the transition there was pain, I was the generation born between 1958-1964 that had to take drastic cuts, in my case I lost 1/3 of my pensions. A cut I was willing to take since if the system had not been fully funded and semi-privatized there would have been zero dollars to pay out. But because of the 401k part I invest part of my pension and will therefore be at least at the same level as before. But the risk of underfunding my pension is on me, not on the taxpayer and future generations. That is the beauty of it.

Social Security that was set up by Roosevelt was bankrupt from the beginning, a Ponzi scheme. It was all the time unsustainable. The Swedish social Security system set up in 1955 had the same issues. Political populism, letting future generations pay for your pensions. Writing checks that never could be paid!

We now have to pay them and therefore we have to come to an agreement between generations on what is equitable. The Baby boomers will have to pay more for their own Long Term Care and we have to get cuts in our future pension benefits. This means that the baby boomers will have secure and no cuts in Social Security but will have to drain all their assets to pay for Long Term Care. We have time to save more in private pension plans as well as buy mandatory Long Term Care insurance polices.

That is what Pete Peterson is saying and nothing else. Do you want to live in a delusion or in the reality?

You cannot spend monies you do not have, especially not your kids and grand kids money.

And you cannot talk up a already dead horse.

Or maybe Obama can? He is after all in Oprah's words "The One". Maybe he can raise the dead and walk on water.

Yes we can, Hallelujah.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Like the Lion cares for the lamb Posted by: frantic1971
» Not a Ponzi Scheme Posted by: Jim Shaw
» RE: Not a Ponzi Scheme Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: You wouldn't know a Ponzi Scheme if it jumped up and bit you. Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» SS HISTORY Posted by: reelman
Social Security didn't get privatized overnight as this article points out.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Feb 20, 2009 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for Obama, that son of a gun is already hell bent on kissing up to Wall $treet so he'll let it get further privatized. It's over already. Time to RESTART.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

S.S. System Isn't an Island
Posted by: Jim Shaw on Feb 20, 2009 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't trust Pete Peterson and don't want S.S. privatized, but it's misleading to say that S.S. is healthy.

The reason is that the S.S. trust fund that we are counting on to bridge the gap (between taxes collected and promised benefits to be paid out) created by the boomer retirements is really a bunch of IOUs to be payed by the rest of the federal government.

With the national debt ever-growing and the future of our capitalist system in doubt, I think it's reasonable to question where the government is going to get that money.

Even if making good on these obligations is given top priority and the trust fund bonds are paid in full (including interest), that won't be much of a victory for the working class if that money comes out of other programs we depend on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: S.S. System Isn't an Island Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: S.S. System Isn't an Island Posted by: markw4786
» I Do Have My Facts Straight Posted by: Jim Shaw
illuminatus-enlightened
Posted by: mwildfire on Feb 20, 2009 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, to the author of this piece: why do you refer to Social Security benefits right under the title, as "welfare"? And what's with the paragraph where you quote some guy who worked for Reagan but say "ignoring that his results resulted from an error and later disappeared"? What's with that bit?
But mainly I want to respond to the illuminatus-etc person above, whose post is riddled with errors. Yes, SS is pay-as -you-go, but that doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. It's been working just fine for 70 years. The Baby Boomers will NOT bankrupt it--a little adjustment for longer life was already made in the Reagan years, and at this point Social Security is expected to be solvent till the late 30's or 40's--at which time, may I point out, the Baby Boomers will be in their eighties, nineties, and hundred-and's. In other words, mostly dead. The real risk to Social Security is the likes of Peterson persuading the likes of illuminati that older people are gonna rob him unless we privatize Social Security--so that the nice people who just got 700 billion of our tax dollars to cover their gambling losses can get their mitts on our retirement savings, and what a shame it will be when we need it for retirement and are told the market didn't do well so we're on our own! This is outright THEFT. The other threat is Congress getting their sweaty hands on it to pay for their various wars or to make the budget deficit look smaller. People made fun of Gore for reflexively quacking "lockbox, lock-box" during one of his debates with the Bush child, but he was right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There is no need to privatize, only a need to end Pay As You Go. Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: illuminatus-enlightened Posted by: cokids
» Social Security benefits are insurance not welfare i.e. no Pay As You Go Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
DEFINING RETIREMENT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 20, 2009 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are owed their dignity, decent health care, and the basic essentials. Beyond that retirement is not a non-stop vacation complete with second home, boat in the back and romps on the beach. If that wasn't you lifestyle while your were working it won't be possible when you retire. Baby boomers seem unrealistic about their entitlements. Truth is they'll have more time but less money. Doesn't mean poverty, but it's important see time as a luxury that they never had before. That is the single biggest reward they can hope for. Time is the greatest gift. Unrealistic expectations breed unhappiness. I'm not sure the Baby Boomers need more money for retirement, they need a new attitude. Henry Ford said, "No one is a time millionaire". You are when you retire. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I plan on suicide Posted by: JSquercia
Puhlease
Posted by: mpreb658@earthlink.net on Feb 20, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Righties have invaded again.

Maybe that Peterson guy is the one spending big bucks to send out his hordes to destroy the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Social Security
Posted by: Cathy on Feb 20, 2009 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All you posters against Social Security:
How old are you? Are you rich? You folks scare me to death. SS is a promise to the American people. With the economy in the tank, we must have it.

I'm 58. I am working full time and will continue to work. I have paid for my grandparents and parents to receive SS. What am I to do if SS is gone? Folks who want to do away with SS must live in dreamland. What do you think the Baby Boomers will do if SS is gone? We are not going away. Should we just live on the streets? Will young people be able to take care of their parents and grandparents? I will never understand greedy, meanspirited conservatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you for your comment Posted by: frantic1971
» RE: Social Security Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Social Security Posted by: cokids
leftbank
Posted by: markw4786 on Feb 20, 2009 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article misses the point. SS must not only be saved for baby boomers, it must be saved for all generations. Its not that complicated...RAISE THE DAMNED CAP,EASY AS THAT!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: leftbank Posted by: cokids
» RE: leftbank Posted by: markw4786
MBobo
Posted by: mbobo76 on Feb 20, 2009 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is anyone else out there sick to death of hearing about the concerns of the "Baby Boomers"??? A generation who by the shear fate of numbers alone had the power to affect serious social change and BLEW IT on a pattern
of unprecedented SELFISHNESS??? F the baby boomers!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stereotype much? Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I agree with you. Posted by: Crazy H
Real stimulus - right now
Posted by: JerseyGeoff on Feb 20, 2009 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Baker is right that this would be a meaningful stimulus, and so would passing HR 676, single payer health care for all.
My wife and I have been saving like fiends for 30 years- we have no kids and consume very little by choice. If I KNEW I could count on healthcare and social security I'd be much more inclined to go out and spend and perhaps take a shot at starting a business versus huddling in the trenches. Medicare/ Medicaid are sicker financially than Social Security is- soon cutbacks to all will occur unless we demand single payer care and beefing up social security- how? maybe it's time to cut out some military spending.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks Alternet for this article
Posted by: frantic1971 on Feb 20, 2009 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having had two parents and grandparents-- who relied on and greatly needed Social Security---it is good to see and article like this.

Both my dad (who passed away in 2002) and my grandparents were tenent farmers who didn't have much money when they retired at 65. Social Security was a godsend.

Peterson and others of his ilk have absolutely hated the very idea of Social Security. The Right has been spastic about it going back to its inception in 1935. We need more exposes on Peterson and his "Committee to Save Social Security" (or whatever moniker it goes by now). We need to let our representatives know that we will not be fooled by this propaganda campaign waged by the social security haters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So...Bernie Madoff should have avoided jail by running for Congress?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 20, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just asking why the SEC has been assaulted for failing to perform basic addition and subtraction or listening to talented whistleblowers who did get through sixth-grade algebra, but our President is lionized for his enforcement of ignorance for the benefit of the few?

If Congress had to count projected liabilities in the budget (as corporations do), I suspect the state of SS and Medicare would turn more heads. Then again, we've just got through spending or approving the expenditure of 1.5-ish trillion dollars between TARP and the Stimulators' Big Stick, so perhaps people are just tired of hearing numbers. That was in addition to previous record debts (guess that t'werent so stimulative roit there, eh?), around a trillion dollars on these obscene "nation building" things, and a contraction in the economy after the U.S. gluttony of years bygone.

Put 'yer heads in the ground: as long as you're planning on dieing in the next few decades, you won the "We'll Cheat Them Young'uns Federal Lottery". Congrats on your shrewd winnings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sod Zawg
Posted by: gwazdos1 on Feb 20, 2009 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Republicans - Cancer - same thing. they work to destroy you and make themselves rich at our expense. Nothing has changed with them except the don't wear the brown shirts anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Social Security is not welfare
Posted by: harpy on Feb 20, 2009 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nor is it an "entitlement". It is an insurance program that the workers paid into and the benefits shouldn't be tampered with or privatized. What a nightmare that would be if Wall Street got a hold of SS money!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mr Van H Posted by: wbblack
» RE: Politically, I'm an Ent. Posted by: wbblack
Oh, gracious God
Posted by: dockboy on Feb 20, 2009 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It's such a blessing to see you Mr. President, thank you for taking time out of your day!" Osegueda shouted. "Oh, gracious God, thank you so much!"

That says it all. If the One says SS is safe, then we can all relax and spend. If only he would start saying "yes we can" instead of "this economy only sucks". How do you people have such confidence in Obama?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remove the wage cap and stop using SS for anything EXCEPT SS benefits - NEVER PRIVATIZE IT
Posted by: DCostello2 on Feb 20, 2009 10:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, never ever ever privatize Social Security. Turning that money over to those greedy heartless you-know-whats on Wall St would be the end of it for certain.

Second, get rid of the wage cap. Right now, the only people paying SS taxes are the ones who can't afford it. If we got rid of the wage cap, there would be no problem funding Social Security for forever. We could even reduce the rate if we got rid of the cap. Broaden the base/reduce the rate - real tax reform.

Lastly, keep your money grubbing hands - Congress, off of Social Security unless you're using it to pay Social Security benefits. Period. End of story.

If these three simple things were followed without variance, Social Security would be beyond fully funded and would never have any issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: You can be your brother's keeper if you want.
Posted by: robertkamper on Feb 20, 2009 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right - find yourself another planet and go there to live, please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's a new group of Obama acolytes. Saw 'em on TV. I call them the Canabamabots.
Posted by: Beck on Feb 20, 2009 2:20 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have that same glassy stare you astute political observers see wherever you look. Who would have thought it? Canadians actually falling for the obvious hypocrisy of Barry HUSSEIN?

Is this bad, another group so worshipful of someone so, so, so the SAME as McCain? Or actually, is it good? Because if there are even more Obamabots, that means the astute ones are even a smaller percentage. Tricky situation. Marginality, good, even necessary. But that vote problem! How DO you insult 69 million people while simultaneously insisting to them that they need to follow and emulate you? Can it ever be pulled off?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fake Crisis if ever there was one
Posted by: robertkamper on Feb 20, 2009 6:48 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and Social Security would be solvent "forever" if those making over $100K paid their fair share in payroll taxes (including me). According to GOVERNMENT conservative estimates. All the crisis in Social Security talk has been to get you to put your money into "privatized" accounts on Wall Street instead of US Treasury IOUs. We see how well Wall Street is doing today, right?
The best move Obama-Biden could make would be to get rid of the payroll cap and say "Everyone has to make sacrifices, even the President of the United States."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» whoops, sorry about that . . . Posted by: dustdevil
The wolf has been extinct to cry out!
Posted by: larazzafilms on Feb 21, 2009 1:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that we as Americans are in a panic and are quickly loosing control. We are demanding a quick fix to this hell bent problem in which our current president inherited. Remember, "We" as “Americans” sheltered the egotistic stupidity of our past administration. The posted concerns and comments weren’t as negative then??? I think that many feared Bush’s “Homeland security” and clearly demonstrated the fear of not being “true spoken leaders”. Let's stop drawing the quick guns people! I see the same flip flopping personalities in which where present during the "911" fight against terrorism. President Obama is not responsible to mop up my or your voted upon mess up! Be thankful and appreciative that there is someone in the white house that actually cares to listen to his people. I can clearly see the fat greedy parasites edging around him, making deals behind his back and ready to undermine his goals and visions. In my opinion, he needs to better protect himself from the grinding hyenas circling him. People wake up...the problem is much larger then we are aware of. The vacuum bag is completely full with contamination. Even one spray of Lysol is not enough to kill 98% of all the germs inside. The whole dirty bag needs to be replaced! Congress remains to have ownership of many old mentalities sitting in commanding positions. We as a unity of people are the only way to demand change and communicate with these elected officials to carry out and implement the needs of its people. This president is not to be blamed for the lack of our own inabilities to think outside of the box. All of the signs were present as we were all being burglarized in the middle of the night, very few were smart enough to change their locks before hand. As a united nation of individuals, we are falling apart and if we keep this up, we will become employees of a nation instead of united owners of one. Un enforced complaining does not warrant change. Think and pursue change does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Have Confidence in Obama
Posted by: magoogle on Feb 21, 2009 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because unlike the beady-eyed, liar and theif, of the past eight years, Obama has done more in 30 days to gain my trust, than any politician of the last forty years. And I dont go all wobbly over every news blurb that hits the paper. I will wait to hear it from HIM.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ms
Posted by: ericksonml@sbcglobal.net on Feb 21, 2009 4:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Baker - Thanks for writing this article. Now write another article advising people what we can do to effectively fight against the Pete Peterson's of the world and their right wing foundations. We need an action plan.

ps I met Peterson years ago when he was at Leyman brothers and he was a nasty son of *&@** then and he still is. An 82 year old guy with 2.6 billion dollars is trying to take ordinary people's social security away from them. Disgusting!! Why doesn't he DONATE HIS 2.6 BILLION to the social security fund if he is so worried about it's solvency. He doesn't have long to live - I hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's what greedy capitalists do
Posted by: PaulD on Feb 21, 2009 9:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A thousand dollars invested in the S&P500 in 1960 and left untouched would be worth $10,000 as of last Friday.

With dividends reinvested, it would be worth about $80,000.

The same amount invested in Social Security would be worth....zero.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE REAL SOCIAL SECURITY STORY
Posted by: master09 on Feb 22, 2009 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.network-democracy.org/social-security/ff/faq/trust.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So much stuff and nonsense!
Posted by: CJC on Feb 22, 2009 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Retirement is not a privilege.
a. People get tired and sick as they age, albeit at very different rates.
b. People's spouses get tired and sick as they age and one spouse may have to retire to take care of the other.
c. People should retire because, among other things, their skills may no longer be useful, they can't perform the tasks they have been paid to do - think of those doing manual and physical work -, and the employment system has to make room for younger people to find jobs.
d. "Buyouts" . Do all you naysayers imagine that no one is forced into retirement? What kind of privilege is it to be faced with a choice between an early retirement or being laid off several months later?

2. Older people should not be dependent on the younger generations in their family for financial support. And some people don't even have children who could take care of them.

3. Does the recent meltdown in the financial markets not give people pause about trying to move to an entirely "privatized" system??? In my own social and economic class almost no one is entirely dependent on Social Security but a 30-50% drop in the value of saved assets is a lively topic of conversation and worry. We are glad for whatever Social Security can add to our incomes and to pay for Medicare.

4. As others have pointed out, Social Security would have more funds if the tax didn't top out at a relatively low level of income.

5. I don't know whose responsibility it is that the Social Security "Trust Fund" is no such thing, but I know it's not the fault of careless citizens.

Are the posters here who are all snarky about the "over-privileged" baby boomers rushing out to take care of the older generations in their own families and giving back to the government the unnecessary social security benefits their parents and grandparents are getting?

The tone of this discussion on Alternet of all places is really alarming.

Wake up, use your heads, have a little sense and a little compassion. If you don't die soon you too will get to 65 and will have a different point of view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to win this debate
Posted by: PaulD on Feb 22, 2009 9:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With a few minutes, the internet, and a little work, anyone can see how the stock market stacks up against Social Security.

So you decide. Pick a span of several decades, a certain amount of money, and see which system would have provided more retirement dollars.

Ready, set, go.

May the best investment win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Welfare goddammit? F*&k you!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Feb 24, 2009 2:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Social security is funded by employees and their employers. Social security is not a welfare program. You can shit in your hat for putting a thing like that in your secondary headline, Dean Baker.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement