Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Don't believe them. Defeat them

Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 21, 2012, 10:01 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

So I was in a debate against my Republican opponent Todd Long a few days ago, and the subject of Social Security came up. He spat out the usual buzzwords about how Social Security is broke, how the Democrats stole all the money from it, etc., etc. I said that he sounded like Chicken Little, but he kept right on going, and then imparted his "solutions."

By way of background, my opponent paid to publish a book that brings together, in one place, all of his bizarre misconceptions and crackpot schemes. Sort of like "The Thoughts of Chairman Todd." In his vanity book, on page 136, he histrionically announces that: "Projections indicate that by 2037, the Trust Fund will be exhausted."

What that actually means is that if absolutely nothing changes for the next 25 years, then we may reach a point when we will have to pay Social Security benefits out of tax revenue or borrowing - the exact same way that we pay for every other federal program - rather than by withdrawals from the Social Security Trust Fund. And if absolutely nothing changes in the next 25 years, and if we don't raise Social Security taxes at that time, and if we don't borrow the money, then Social Security benefits - 25 years from now - may drop by 10 or 15 percent. In any event, the revenue generated under current law will be enough to pay for 85 to 90 percent of the benefits under current law. We're talking about 25 years from now, when I will be 79 years old, if I live that long.

See what I meant by "Chicken Little"? Right now, we have almost 25 million Americans who can't find full-time work, we have almost 50 million Americans who can't see a doctor when they're sick, and he wants us just to forget all about that and concentrate on the year 2037.

But that's not the worst part. The worst part is that every one of his so-called "solutions" actually would make the problem worse. He wants to raise the age of Social Security eligibility to 72. That's a 100% benefit cut for people between the ages of 65 and 71. And in his "privatization" scheme, he wants to take away tax revenue for Social Security, and dump it on Wall Street. That really would make it impossible to maintain the current level of benefits. And in his "government guarantee" scheme, he wants the federal government to insure these Wall Street accounts against losses - Wall Street losses that totaled $7 trillion after the 2008 crash.

Listening to all this ridiculous nonsense, I sort of scratched my head, wondering how anyone could think that this would "save" Social Security. And then I realized what was really going on:

He doesn't want to save Social Security. He wants to destroy it.

My opponent (like Gov. Rick Perry) calls Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" (p. 134). Is that something that he would want to save? He says that Social Security is unconstitutional, simply because it meets "individual needs" (p. 96). Is that something that he would want to save? He evidently thinks that Social Security, like Medicare, is "one generation rob[bing] from the next" (p. 141). Is that something that he would want to save?

Answer: No. He doesn't want to save Social Security; he wants to destroy it. That was my small epiphany at the debate, and that's what I said. (In candidate debates, a little bit of truth goes a long way.)

And at the same time, I came upon another modest insight: he's not the only one. In fact, there are huge numbers of Fox-fed, Rove-raised, Koch-coddled candidates and elected officials all over the country, just like him. They think that if they beat their chests and scream loud enough about how they must save Social Security, then they can kill it. It's perhaps the Biggest Lie of all the Big Lies in American politics today.

My advice to America:

Don't believe them.
Defeat them.

Courage, Alan Grayson



Read the Rules


[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 11 years ago

Oh, because when Democrats are in charge, everything is a paradise? No, because those republicans got in the way. What if Democrats ran their own little oligarchy dictatorship? Then it would be perfect?

My gosh. It's not democrats or republicans that got us into this mess. Corrupt politics, and a monopoly of violence has gotten us into this mess. Why would more corrupt politics get us out of this mess??

Why vote at all? Voting just means you consent to be a slave.

In the words of Stefan Molyneux.. "If you believe that changing the hood ornament on a car that is slowly running you over will set you free...then no words of mine or hundreds of years of history will change your mind, go for it."

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

Oh, because when Democrats are in charge, everything is a paradise? No, because those republicans got in the way. What if Democrats ran their own little oligarchy dictatorship? Then it would be perfect?

Why cant these people BOTH criticize D & admit the truth -
that D is better than R
they are not the same -
can you handle the truth?

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 11 years ago

both parties are driving the car off the cliff. both parties are using state violence. both parties maintain a system of slavery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ&feature=related

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

and all are . There is no difference.

the cry of the unreasoning masses - and the lemmings


[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

SS will be fine. I think the cap on payroll deductions shouldbe lifted. Let upper income people pay in. We should also introduce a small tax (1% of anything over 100k) on cap gains since that income gets a free ride, Also means test the distribution. Why should millionaires get SS.? With that reform wecan cut the payroll contribution for lower income people and increase the amount the elderly receive.

Just MHO

[-] 2 points by marvelpym (-184) 11 years ago

What if the millionaires paid a lot into it before they became millionaires? What if they had to pay a lot into it when they were younger and less succesful, with families to support? They forfeit that now?

This is a legit question, not trolling. I know people who, while not millionaires, are very well off but didn't really hit into later in life.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

If they do not need the earned benefit they contributed to why would they take it? Why would they want it? Simply because the paid in.? Maybe we can let them take it and have some sort of "public square" shame or humiliation mechanism? Maybe they could donate it and deduct it.

Many people today who do not need it, do not take it. For some it is just natural to help others but for those do not care about their fellow citizen we could do one ofthe above or some other idea. I don't have all the answers.


[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

The problem isnt SS alone, its that this entire system is hell bent on fucking EVERYONE over.

They didnt save a dime from the 45 years of work that people have been putting into it. There is no "Trust Fund".

These people bomb people, they give all the breaks to the top, they fuck over anyone who gets in their path. But they are responsible enough to create a special spot where there are trillions of untouched dollars sitting?

This is the biggest line of bullshit ever.

The answer is not to raise the age, or to privatize. The answer is to get some accountability into DC. End the Wars. End the bullshit.

If that doesnt happen, ending the bullshit, then SS will become obsolete. They already arent raising it for inflation anymore (1 of the last 4 years they added 3%).

They dont fuckin care if you get it or not. They never did.