Home | About | Donate

80 Years Later, Republicans Are Still Fighting Social Security


#1

80 Years Later, Republicans Are Still Fighting Social Security

Richard Eskow

Some things never change. “The lash of the dictator will be felt,” a Republican House member said in 1935 when Social Security was first proposed. “Social Security is the delinquent child of the left,” a Fox News commentator said this week, “that grew up to be an evil dictator.”

“Dictator”? A program created by popularly elected politicians, and which enjoys widespread support among voters?


#2

Social Security's birthday makes it a LEO--as in FROM the heart, a love-based entity. How apt!

Using its original birth date: 8 + 14 = 22 and if one adds its year of origin as single digits, then it's 1 + 9 + 3 + 5 = 18.

Following numerology guidelines (ones that enable any birth date or inception date to accord with one of the Ancient Chinese I ching's 64 Life-grams or Kuas a/k/a hexagrams), one then combines 22 with 18 and the I ching number is 40: Deliverance. Again: absolute synchronicity.

How many people indeed found a form of Deliverance through their S.S. checks?

I've watched the "To everything there is a number, and a time for every purpose under heaven" play out with similar synchronicity; and the "concordance" remains a marvel to me.

For instance, 9 + 11 (20) + 2001 (3) is 20 + 3 or 23. That number is termed "Splitting apart" in the I ching, and again, how apt the events of time accorded with the numerological fabric reflecting it.

No one with HEART would ever wish to diminish Social Security.

It's good to see Mr. Eskow skate past the ideology veneer into the reality: that billionaires and those who are too callous to share any iota of their personal good fortune with others (who are needier) latch onto the rationales that attempt to hide their own naked selfishness. The School of Scrooge lives on among Conservatives. Shame on them!


#3

From the article:
"... relatively minor future shortfalls, without mentioning that they could easily be fixed – and benefits expanded – if millionaires and billionaires were willing to pay into the program at the same rates as middle-class Americans."

Corrected:
"... if millionaires and billionaires were FORCED to pay into the program..."

Fixed that!


#5

Can someone tell me the origin of the rightwing "talking point" that tries to focus public attention on the supposed funding of Social Security only by young workers paying in for the benefits paid out. Thus obfuscating, denying, and ignoring the role of The Social Security Trust Fund.

Whenever I hear mention that an increase or decrease in the number of young workers is what matters to the existence of Social Security I shift into high danger alert mode. Who's saying that, and wtf is he really up to?! He's certainly not acknowledging the good that Social Security does, and the economical way it's done. (No outrageously compensated CEOs needed!) He's most likely out to kill and dismantle the program.


#6

It is historically inaccurate to imply that Republicans have fought Social Security over the years. 79 per cent of House Republicans and 64 per cent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of Social Security in 1935, with similar percentages voting for Medicare in 1965.

From the article:
"... relatively minor future shortfalls, without mentioning that they could easily be fixed – and benefits expanded – if millionaires and billionaires were willing to pay into the program at the same rates as middle-class Americans."

The way the program has traditionally been structured, the more you put in, the higher your monthly benefit when you reach retirement age. So forcing the wealthy to pay more in would not, by itself, help to save the system, since the monthly benefit to a wealthy person would simply go up commensurate with the amount they put in.


#7

i'd love to see the great clash of values that a sanders versus trump presidential election would decide. bernie is for expanding social security and medicare to everyone while trump makes ridiculous fantasy promises which will expand corporate interests and defense/security spending. depending on point of view this bet by election through the american people could save or doom our economy. i'd place my bet with socialist social security and socialist medicare for all, already popular across party lines now and apparently no hindrance to prosperity in countries that have those kinds of social programs.
but then, like OMG, think of the billionaires, who will fight to the death and spend liberally protecting their interests before they will let us pry another nickel from their cold clammy hands.


#8

unfortunately,for me and other ss contributors, had we been allowed at the beginning to deposit the same amount in a bank at standard passbook interest rate at the time of the deposit after 45 yrs of steady deposits we would ha\/e been able to retire fairly wealthy instead of at the edge of po\/erty.


#9

FICA tax that funds Social Security starts at somewhere between $400 and $500 annual income (bureaucrats don't want to bother with smaller chunks of tax base) and is flat rate on all earned income up to whatever the current maximum is. I feel the maximum should be adjusted for inflation since the last time it was adjusted and then indexed to inflation the same as benefits. Benefits are not strictly proportional to earning records. High earning individuals get more than lower earning individuals in total $ amount, but somewhat less in proportion to their total earning record.