Originally posted by RELDDIR
reply to post by ClintK
I hope you're not implying younger voters are selfish. We are paying or will be paying for the previous generations' entitlement programs, yet we
might not have any to live off of ourselves. Just another two cents.
You're right, RELDDIR, but here's the problem. Older people, like me (late 50s) paid into SS and Medicare ALL OUR LIVES.
In 1983, because of
the Greenspan Commission, we started paying an extra 1 percent for every dollar we made (.5 percent from our paychecks, .5 percent from our employers)
in to our FICA accounts for a total of 13 percent for every dollar we made (previously it had been 12 percent). The extra $$ would cause a surplus in
Social Security that would build up over the next 25 years so that when the baby boom generation retired the needed extra money was there.
Great plan. But there was a problem. Rather than leaving the surplus alone and letting it build up, the surplus was spent, mostly to support tax
cuts. The people who complained about this being being bad judgment (I was one) were ridiculed as being alarmists. We were told that the money was
being replaced with T-bills, which were "the most reliable security in the world." We were held up to the rest of America as being stupid and not
really understanding the issue because what was happening was simply NOT a problem.
Unfortunately, most people believed it. It was obvious to anyone with a brain that the American people were being misled -- we were definitely going
to have to pay off that borrowed money. But, frankly, a lot of Americans don't have a brain.
Al Gore was going to stop it if he became President, but even he got ridiculed because he said he was going to put the surplus in a "lock box." So
there was a lot of ridicule and derision and satire about the "lock box." But then, because the idea was catching on after the initial derision by
conservative pundits, Bush made a similar promise. He immediately broke it with his first budget, then even laughed at the idea when he started
pushing to privatize social security.
So the money kept getting taken out of the Social Security surplus.
Until Obama. By 2009, there was no more surplus. Just trillions of dollars in debt from the previous budgets that had "borrowed" (or perhaps a
better word is stolen) from the surplus. It is worth mentioning that there was one year that nothing was taken from the surplus under Clinton.
Anyway, now they have to start paying that money back. If they had left the surplus alone, we wouldn't have this problem. But in defense of my
generation, I have to say we were sold the tax cut idea like there was no cost at all. Just freeloaders getting cut from the welfare rolls. And, as
I mentioned, people who expressed alarm that the surplus was being spent were ridiculed as being dumb and not understanding the issue.
We did, of course, understand the issue, but we were a minority.
I'm sorry this had to fall on your generation. It is a symptom of a dysfunctional political system. But it is also a symptom of an intellectually
lazy American public that doesn't understand basic arithmetic. And won't try to. And a news media entirely focused on clicks, circulation and
ratings. They really didn't cover this story until recently.
I wanted to add (because you are being lied to as well by people who want to destroy SS) it is IMPOSSIBLE that you won't have anything from SS when
you retire. As long as working people are paying into the FICA account (a deduction from your paycheck) there will definitely be money there. It may
not be as much money as I'll get, percentage -wise, but it could be MORE. It all depends on who your generation elects to office.
My advice: don't vote for right wingers or Republicans. They hate social security and have been working to destroy it since its
edit on 1-9-2012 by ClintK because: added