Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

It has come to my attention that your organization has begun running an advertising campaign to promote President George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security and cut benefits. The advertisements that are currently being aired feature President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his signing of the original Social Security legislation. I find the use of my grandfather's image and legacy in your campaign to be highly inappropriate.

For seventy years, Social Security has been the bedrock of retirement security for millions of Americans thanks to the efforts of President Roosevelt. My grandfather would surely oppose the ideas now being promoted by this administration and your organization. Not only that, but to compare the courage it took to provide a guaranteed insurance program for our seniors and the disabled to the courage it will take to dismantle the most successful social program in history is simply unconscionable. We should be working to protect and promote Social Security, not cutting benefits for our seniors.

On behalf of my family, I would ask that you cease using my grandfather's image in your advertising campaign.

Respectfully,

James Roosevelt Jr.

Here's the ad, from "Progress for America", aka GOP with different name.

http://www.progressforamerica.com/pfa/wrapper.jsp?PID=1101-27

 

[MIMIC]

The title of this thread is misleading....and disappointing.

Spoiler

Wink, wink

 

[Loki]

SS is unsustainable without a large infusion of cash from the government. I do not, however, feel that privatization is the answer (does anything that Bush does not involve funnelling more business to corporations? ). I recall reading that in 5 years or so, there will be more retired people than workers in the workforce, which is an obvious strain on the system. Another strain is that income over a certain level is not subject to SS deductions via taxation-- so all these multimillionaires and billionaires are not paying into the system proportionately, which affects the bottom line.


The real problem, as I see it, is the fact that it is exceedingly difficult to find jobs which offer pensions nowadays, whereas back in the day they were commonplace; this is the big lure of city/federal jobs, and here in NY it's starting to break the state budget's back. My grandfather has not one, but two pensions (he worked until he was 80 years old) to supplement his SS and veteran's benefits, and this really helps ease the burden on the elderly. In addition, pensions were provided solely by the companies, and the employee did not have to pay into it except in rare instances (according to my grandfather; not sure how solid that info is-- he's 86 and his memory is hazy ). Chalk it up to corporations being greedy (as I do for so much in life ) and trying to appease shareholders by showing higher profits-- can't have a pesky little thing like pensions get in the way of record profits, now, can we? :lol Unless you're in upper-management, pensioned jobs are VERY hard to come by, and I find that a sad commentary on our society, and on corporate culture in particular...

 

[shoplifter]

Indeed, I'm quite tired of hearing the infamous "Well, if these elderly folks wouldn't have squandered their money, they wouldn't be relying on SS" claims. Many people (my grandpa included) have lost their pensions as a result of company bankruptcies. These are the people SS is there to protect.

 

[iapetus]

The title of this thread is misleading....and disappointing.

You were hoping for this?

 

[tyguy20204]

There are much more important problems than Social Security. Many economists doubt the severity of this 'crisis.'

 

[Outdoor Miner]

From what I've learned, all the gloom-n-doom regarding the future of our SS program have been greatly exaggerated.

They say the system starts to strain around 2018, when the actual year is 2042 if I'm not mistaken.

Sure the system needs changing, but we're not screwed if Bush doesn't get it done in the next 4 years.

 

[Hitokage]

Well, we WERE running surplusses on the Social Security budget for several years now until that got funneled into Borrow and Spend politics.

 

[Incognito]

From what I've learned, all the gloom-n-doom regarding the future of our SS program have been greatly exaggerated.

They say the system starts to strain around 2018, when the actual year is 2042 if I'm not mistaken.

Sure the system needs changing, but we're not screwed if Bush doesn't get it done in the next 4 years.

Not even that. According to http://dailyhowler.com/dh011205.shtml:

What is wrong with Bush’s statement? Workers who are in their mid-20s will, by and large, begin to retire shortly after the year 2040. And will Social Security be “bankrupt—flat bust,” as their joke-cracking president said? Sorry. According to the CBO, the system will still pay full scheduled benefits until the year 2052. After that, will SS be “flat bust?” No, it will not, as Bush knows. After 2052, the system will be able to pay 81 percent of scheduled benefits. Even adjusted for inflation, those benefits will be far more than SS recipients are getting today.

Understand: If no changes are made to the system, recipients will get substantially more in 2052 than recipients are getting today! But incredibly, your lying president tells decent citizens that the system will instead be “flat bust!” And by the way: Even according to the pessimistic forecasts of the SS trustees, the system won’t be “bankrupt, flat bust” when young workers start to retire. According to the trustees’ gloomy projections, the system will pay full benefits until 2042. It will then pay 73 percent of scheduled benefits, more than recipients get today.

No, Social Security won’t be “flat bust”—or anything like it—when young workers start to retire. But George Bush lies the way other men breathe. Soon, he even had the gall to tell his audience this:

BushCo -- Kings of Faux Crisis

 

[Loki]

There are much more important problems than Social Security. Many economists doubt the severity of this 'crisis.'

Considering that, as has been noted, few companies provide pensions anymore, I'd say that the solvency of the SS system is of the utmost importance-- unless you plan on having scads of septuagenarians homeless in the streets unable to afford shelter or food within the next 30 years.


Sal, yes, the "crisis" likely won't come to a head for a couple of decades yet, but the issue of how to fund it must be dealt with well prior to such an event-- as in, "now".


Lonestar:


If it's a manufactured crisis, then perhaps you can explain to me how a fixed number of workforce employees can fund a system which subsidizes an even greater number of retirees, especially considering that exemptions for the rich (in terms of SS deductions) are increasing and real wages (from which payroll taxes such as for SS are deducted) have remained stagnant and/or decreased?

The pragmatics of it just seem a bit fuzzy to me, really; any help would be appreciated, since I really don't see how it's sustainable in its present form without either a large infusion of government cash or some form of help from corporations in terms of pensions.

 

[videogamer]

From what I've learned, all the gloom-n-doom regarding the future of our SS program have been greatly exaggerated.

They say the system starts to strain around 2018, when the actual year is 2042 if I'm not mistaken.

Sure the system needs changing, but we're not screwed if Bush doesn't get it done in the next 4 years.

Both sides have long talked about changing Social Security. However, the Democrats at this point look like they don't want change and are simply saying no for the heck of it. Admittedly I don't know much about SS, but the same is with many Americans. What they need to do is to better articulate an alternative to Bush's plan so that the rest of us can easily grasp what a possible future retirement may look like. Uh maybe kind of how Al Gore talked about a "lockbox", but without presenting, like you know, like the way Gore did.