Comments:

addiann - 2005-02-01 14:47:12
Hear, hear! And the stock brokers are standing around drooling about the possibility of their commissions, too.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-01 14:51:18
Do you know what really irritated me? They were discussing this on the Diane Rehm show today, and someone asked, "what happens if the market goes down?" So this guest, some high-power rich guy, gave some pontifical answer about how, over the long term, the market goes up...the market goes down...That made me mad. He didn't care about hungry old people. And over the long term, yeah, the market evens out. But not always--Enron wiped out a lot of people's savings. Now they have nothing.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-01 20:41:02
...and retired people don't have a couple decades to sit out a downturn in the market, for God's sake. One Enron event, and they' may end up in the homeless shelter. If there's room. The average SS payment is around $950 a month. A third of our seniors are living on that alone, and already making choices about whether or not they can get pork chops this week or just the usual can of tuna. I can't help but see a parallel between chickenhawks who send kids to war and fat cats worlds removed from ever needing SS who are making decisions that could have terrible ramifications.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-02 10:07:41
Here's a factcheck.org article that debunks a misleading recent MoveOn Social Security ad. Uh-oh. Careful, MoveOn.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Dan Arbor - 2005-02-02 10:07:55
This is nothing short of a criminal act. The financial world is drooling in anticipation of getting their hands on the SS money. Contrary to what Bush promises, they will not manage, nor grow this money. They will play it, parlay it, borrow against it, siphon it off, and gamble it against risky schemes until it's all gone. Enron anyone?

This is part of the Big Plan. Folks like the prez who are philosophically opposed to any sort of government-run social programs realized a long time ago that they'd never be able to completely sell the public on eliminating these safety nets. The solution? Choke off the funding. Heck, you could even get the taxpayers on your side by selling the elimination of tax revenue funding as a tax cut to the average working Joe.

Unfortunately, millions of jobs have now gone overseas, because business has to stay competitive, and labor is cheaper. And if business is competitive it's good for America. Except, it isn't good for America; it's good for American business, not average Joe.

So, Joe looks to government for assistance to keep his house, his car, medical care and food. But, the government pulls out its empty pockets and says, "Sorry Joe. Nothing left. You should have invested that tax windfall you got when we cut tax revenue for all these social programs."

But, at the time of the tax cut, Joe was encouraged by the government to spend that tax windfall in order "to stimulate the economy," which would ensure American affluence for decades to come. And now Joe realizes two things:

1.) The value of the safety net programs he paid into through his taxes for all those years is worth exponentially more that the pittance of a tax cut he got. He got bought out cheap. Caveat Emptor... 2. He is royally screwed.

And all of this is a long-winded way of saying that I have no idea why Americans who are not part of the wealthiest top percentile would ever vote for Republicans, if they were using their brains at all. Because this "vision for America" is the worst kind of pyramid scheme, and everyone but that top percentile will lose, lose, lose.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-02 10:12:31
I think this is a good analysis of the situation, articulately said as usual. Nice post Dan.

Your point about Joe being told, "Well, you should have invested that tax cut!" is particularly chilling--why do I have the creeping feeling that we'll be told that one day? Anyways, I think my share of the tax cut was $200. Whoop. Dee. Doo.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

raymond - 2005-02-02 10:24:54
Basic Medicare premium: $78.20 per month, deducted automatically from Social Security checks; $110 benefit period deductible; 20% of fees after deductible. The drug benefit kicked in immediately for Pfizer et al, while recipients eat mold off their outdated bread.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-02 10:32:16
You're right about the drug companies. Raymond, I don't quite understand what a "benefit period deductible" is, and would be grateful to learn.

My mom and dad do Meals on Wheels, and they tell me stories about visiting seniors, one of whom has literally, an entire shoebox full of different meds. As someone who eschews all meds and drugs, as I am lucky enough to now have good health, for which I'm thankful, that horrified me.

So, assuming I'm still kicking at 65 and still not taking any meds, I wonder: would the Medicare deduction be the same for me & for the shoebox lady? Hardly seems fair that I would end up paying for those shamelessly inflated drug prices.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Dan Arbor - 2005-02-02 10:34:17
My share was about the same, and they've already been telling us how to use the money. Many times I've heard pundits and administration lackeys use the "windfall" analogy to descibe the tax cut, and then go on to cheefully list the ways the taxpayer can use this money. Simply saving it is not enough; simply investing it is not really enough, if you're a patriotic American. You should invest in America by stimulating the economy.

See how that works? Through a little bit of doubletalk, the rube (average Joe) is manipulated into selling his future for three magic beans that will one grow into a mighty beanstalk and provide for him forever.

Because this is America and everyone will be rich!
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-02 10:40:00
Some "windfall." More like a light breeze. I just put it in the bank. The "three magic beans" metaphor is an apt one.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

raymond - 2005-02-02 10:50:06
The $110 deductible is per year. While government and media were busy extolling the drug benefit windfall, they neglected to report that premiums increased from $66.60 last year to $78.20 now. SSA payments increased too, though (a percent or so). Don't count on eligibility at 65. It's already up to 67 for (you) youngsters.

I had the misfortune to have to call the regional SS office yesterday. While on hold for 10 minutes I heard recordings about how dismal the future looks and how dire the situation will be. The person with whom I eventually spoke expressed insecurity about current attitudes and even expressed concern about her continued employment.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Dan Arbor - 2005-02-02 11:08:19
So, it's now become policy for the the SSA to participate in its own demise by playing doom-crying tape loops for the people on hold?

This totally smacks of the Bush Admin tactic of coopting supposedly "neutral" information sources (news, blogs, etc.) and using this percieved non-partisanship to further the propaganda.

It's so blatant and so pervasive...How is this being missed? Help me understand, please. Did I flip through the Subliminal Bush Channel on TV? Was my Kool-Aid not sufficiently spiked?

When will people wake up?
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-02 11:14:35
Raymond: that's a hefty increase of around 16% if my math is right. Much more than the one percent payment increase. Also, ignorant me--I didn't know it's already up to 67 (sigh). The tape loop is disturbing.

Dan: you seem to be onto something. Sounds likely to me.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

LF - 2005-02-02 13:20:39
I was pissed off when I got my $200 check. I felt like tearing it up, but I knew my pathetic protest would go unnoticed. Thousands of rube votes were bought that day.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-02 13:22:12
I was mad too. "What a waste," I thought.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

LF - 2005-02-02 13:27:19
Yup. A waste and completely irresponsible. Think about the money spent getting the checks out to the masses.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-02 13:30:58
You are right. For all I know they created a new Bureau of Issuing Tax Refunds (just like they'll now have to create a new Bureau of Investing Social Security in the Stock Market).
* * * * * * * * * * * *

raymond - 2005-02-02 15:05:04
Did Ken Lay get $200 too?
* * * * * * * * * * * *

LF - 2005-02-02 16:01:31
Ken Lay - a bastard of the highest order. Personally responsible for the evaporation of countless nesteggs, he has millions in lawsuit-proof investments from which he will receive $900,000 annually after 2007.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-02 16:18:47
Ken Lay. Responsible for families plunged into poverty after they dedicated their working lives and personal savings to Enron. I'm particularly disgusted to hear that he'll be getting so much money. One wishes there were some way to rip that money from him and distribute it to those he so basely cheated.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Andy - 2005-02-03 02:12:37
When that Enron shit first hit the fan, my idea was that we should institute selective Saudi-style public beheadings in our sports stadia. First stop: Houston's Enron Stadium.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-03 08:59:50
The lack of accountability bothers me. Some way should be found to wrest the investment income LF mentions away from him to return to those who lost so much.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

LF - 2005-02-03 15:15:50
Lay should be stripped of his money and property. Then he should be forced to live in public housing. Then he should be forced to work as a maintenance man at public housing properties. Maybe the flippant moneygrubber will realize how the other half lives then.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

raymond - 2005-02-03 16:12:43
Part of the problem the W crowd has with Social Security is that they have to pay in to it. They also know that under the current system despite having paid in to it, those who by age become elibible for SS benefits may soon be cut off from them because of their continuing million dollar incomes.

The assault on the system is also part of the deliberate fragmentation of society, as with the starvation of public education. Divide and conquer. No more should we all contribute to the public good by law. "What's mine is mine, and screw you."

One of the funniest parts of the private account proposal is: What happens if we bozos lose everything in the market? We still gets to drink at the public well, of course. Print more money! But when we strike it rich? Private Property, Keep Out.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2005-02-03 16:16:18
LF: I have to say I'd like to see that.

Raymond, what you say touches on and agrees something I just read about the ongoing disintegration of "the public" in general and the privatization of everything, and the bad results of that. I'll see if I can dig it up; it was very interesting/prophetic.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

add your comment:

your name:
your email:
your url:

back to the entry - Diaryland