Social Security

Eight Reasons Why You Should Care About Social Security

Eight Reasons Why You Should Care About Social Security
Why you, yes you, should care about the fate of Social Security

 

Many less-political Americans, especially younger Americans, consider Social Security to be a boring, worthless issue that they don't need to care about. Here are eight reasons why that's wrong, and why everyone, especially the young, really should consider Social Security an important issue in their lives.

1. You're paying for it. 6.2% of every dollar you make is already going to Social Security, through taxes, whether you like it or not. That's four minutes of every hour working that you spend working for no one but Uncle Sam and your grandmother's bridge club. For someone who makes $40,000/yr, that's almost $2,500 paid over a full year. You're going to not care about something that you pay that much for?

Rebuttal: Joe Conason

Rebuttal: Joe Conason
The Successes of Bankruptcy, the Simultaneous Desirability and Repugnance of Government Control, and Joe Conason's Other Gems

Conason's Article

 

The morning after the president's emotion-drenched 2005 State of the Union address, Americans may be wondering what he actually explained about his intentions for a second term.

Last night's rollout of the latest White House political product -- recently rebranded as "Social Security personal accounts" -- adhered closely to those familiar techniques. Bush proclaimed the imminent bankruptcy of the nation's most successful and popular government program,

Rebuttal: Paul Krugman (Yet Again)

Rebuttal: Paul Krugman (Yet Again)

Ownership. It's not just for the logical.

Krugman's Article

The following letter was sent to Mr. Krugman:

Mr. Krugman:

Congratulations! Your article, entitled "Bush's Own Plan," has been designated "Machicolation of the Week" by the Prometheus Institute! Your work has been selected for its logical fallacies, shamelessly demagogical intent, and general ignorance of political reality. In order to combat the egregious saturation of sophistry that pervades your piece, we felt the publication of a full rebuttal was a public necessity. Below you will find the Prometheus Institute's response to your piece. We hope you enjoy the spotlight of our intellectual illumination. We eagerly await your reply.

Rebuttal: Paul Krugman

Rebuttal: Paul Krugman
I really would stop talking about Social Security, but what am I going to do when I discover articles like this?

Krugman's Article

President Bush's effort to hustle the nation into dismantling Social Security as we know it seems to be faltering: the more voters hear about how privatization would work, the less they like it.

It is quite curious that you would cite an evanescence of public support as a probative example. President Clinton's health care proposals in the mid 1990s - a system effectually identical to the one you've promoted in past columns - died because of a similar lack of public support.

There are two relevant lessons:

Rebuttal: Robert Scheer

Rebuttal: Robert Scheer
Social insecurity

Scheer's Article

 

Just my luck: I finally get to be a senior citizen only to discover that the President considers my longevity a grave threat to the nation. That's why, after seven decades of unmitigated success in protecting seniors from the vagaries of market forces, the White House now wants to turn Social Security itself over to the vagaries of market forces.

You should be aware that the vagaries of market forces are what fund Social Security, yet it is the gross ineptitude of bureaucracy that has created a $26 trillion unfunded liability in the system. Furthermore, it is the personal control of finances that represents the only chance to save public retirement.

You should also be aware that the stock market has a historical return on investment of nearly 10%. So much for vagaries.