[lbo-talk] "First Baby Boomer applies for Social Security" attracting media hysteria, innacuracies

[Mike Ballard]

B. posted from this article:
An estimated 10,000 people a day will become eligible
for Social Security benefits over the next two
decades, Astrue said. The Social Security trust fund,
if left alone, is projected to go broke in 2041.

But Astrue said he is optimistic that Congress will
address the issue, perhaps after the 2008 presidential
election. President Bush had proposed changes in
Social Security to create private accounts, but the
proposal went nowhere in Congress.

Last week, Bush's budget director called the growth in
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid a "fiscal train
wreck." The three entitlement programs make up nearly
half of all federal spending, a share that is expected
to grow.

A report issued last month by the Treasury Department
said that some combination of benefit cuts and tax
increases will need to be considered to permanently
fix the Social Security shortfall. But White House
officials stressed that Bush remains opposed to
raising taxes.

full: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_go_ot/boomer_social_security
*********************

There are a lot of ruling class media outlets sending out the news that the
"sky is falling" when it comes to Social Security. However, the Congressional
Budget Office says that U.S. Social Security will be able to pay all scheduled
benefits for the next 39 years, even if nothing is done to change the program. 

Has the way the government funds Social Security ever been changed?

Yes. From the 1950s through the 1980s minor changes were made. If similar
changes were made in the coming years, Social Security would be solvent until
almost the end of the century. 

The way Social Security is financed is through taxes on wages and employer
income/profits. The worker pays half and the employer pays half. This money is
used by the Social Security Administration to buy government bonds. The bonds
pay interest and accumulate themselves, by buying more bonds. The Social
Security trust fund will hold $2.4 trillion in government bonds and will be
accumulating more than $200 billion a year in 2009. This is YOUR money,
especially as you slaved your ass off working for wages while your employer
took the product of your labour to the bank. The wealthiest 1% of Americans
(landlords and capitalists) appropriated 21.2% of all income in 2005. The
bottom 50%--worker-producers--got 12.8% of all income. "WSJ" 10/13/07. Your
employer's share is just a part of the income s/he derived from employing you
in the first place. You produced the wealth! Besides, your employer is eligible
for Social Security too. Still, there are many, many members of the employing
class who treasure the notion of killing the Social Security program and
keeping the wealth they plow into it for themselves. The employing class is
sending their public mouthpieces out now to convince you that you don't want
Social Security anymore and besides, the "country" (meaning your rulers), don't
want to see "their wealth" put into your pockets when you retire from
wage-slavery. 

Now, if the ruling class pundits who blab on the big corporate and PBS news
shows, usually in bi-partisan harmony with Major Party polytricksters...if
these blubber-kings and queens want a REAL issue to play reform politics with,
they might focus on healthcare. Here's a question to put to them: Why is
healthcare spending in the USA twice that of other industrially developed
countries?

Bingo! Because in the USA, healthcare is treated as a commodity. Don't you just
love it; I mean the 'free market'. For instance, doctors are able to charge
more because their guild, the AMA, keeps their supply in the labour market low.
Low supply of something, say oil, drives the price of the commodity up, UP,
UP!! Doctors are able to obtain much larger incomes in the USA than in other
countries. That's why so many foreign doctors worldwide want to come and
practice medicine in the USA. But the AMA lobby pressures Congress to keep
these hordes out. In Britain, for instance, a doctor who works for the National
Health Service might only get $200,00 a year in wages. Don't believe me? See
the comments on IMDb from those who have seen the movie "SiCKO". 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/usercomments 

Where you don't have to support numerous profit making stock holders and their
HMOs by denying healthcare on the basis of legal technicalities, you can
actually lower healthcare costs. Also, where the government employs doctors and
has the ability to overcome the AMA or similar medical lobby/guild so that more
doctors can be trained domestically to increase their supply in the market,
costs are lower.

End rant,
Mike B)


Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer." - W. C. Fields 
http://www.iww.org/culture/official/preamble.shtml


      Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail.  
www.yahoo.com.au/mail