Join the Discussion

45 Comments

• The truth is that Social Security contributes not a single penny to the deficit.

  How do you figure? Deficits = receipts - outlays. And Social Security is the single largest line item in the federal budget. It is part of the federal government. To somehow remove Social Security from the federal government’s outlays is intellectually dishonest.

  Unlike 401(k) plans, for example, whose administrative fees are routinely 15 or 20 percent of plan contributions

  15 to 20%? That’s ridiculous. Vanguard’s S&P 500 index fund has an expense ratio of 0.18%. Furthermore, even if private plans had higher fees, I would gladly pay them for a higher return. I’m interested in the bottom line: return after fees.

  Poll after poll has made clear that a large majority of Americans — Democrats, Republicans, Independents, young, old, tea partiers, and union members alike — are united in support of Social Security.

  A large majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, too. Did that make it the right thing to do?

  Posted by Bill Woessner | June 14th, 2010 at 11:39 am

• The deficit hawk argument has zero to do with economics and everything to do with conservative “morality,” and as a “moral argument,” it flunks badly.

  Posted by Tom Hickey | June 14th, 2010 at 12:11 pm

• To somehow remove Social Security from the federal government’s outlays is intellectually dishonest.

  Claiming that taxers or borrowing are necessary to fund government expenditure is intellectually dishonest or ignorant when a government is the monopoly provider of a nonconvertible floating rate currency of issue. Such a government is not financially constrained, and as long as real resources are available for purchase, the government can “afford” to purchase them simply through currency issuance. There is no lack of funding, and there cannot be. The only question is whether the government “should” do this, and that is a moral question becomes a political one in a liberal democracy.

  Posted by Tom Hickey | June 14th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

• I guess I would have to say I disagree with the general idea of this article. This year Social Security will pay out more then it takes in. Meaning that it is cash negative today. The problem with Social Security is not yesterday or today. It’s tomorrow. The government report two types of debt, public and gross. Public is what the government tells you we owe. On the other hand gross is the actual, because every year the government borrows from Social Security to pay it’s bills. The difference between the two is the program’s current deficit.

  Posted by WeCantPayThatTab | June 14th, 2010 at 1:32 pm

• I invest in Vanguard because of their low fees, but the author is correct in that many 401ks charge excesses (and varied) fees. Google it! There are plenty of horror stories.

  Regardless, this article is accurate. It helps to understand that the federal government does not have ‘revenue’ as it is the creater and arbiter of all dollars. I have revenue (income), my company has revenue, but the government creates/destroys dollars at will.

  Posted by Jason | June 14th, 2010 at 3:39 pm

• wecantpay,
  the govt doesn’t borrow anything from the SS trust fund. Per mandate FICA payments are invested in treasuries. When SS outflows exceed inflows (such as now,automatic stabilizers kicking in) SS dips into the trust fund. As it normalizes the TF balance rebuilds itself. This happens as the economy dips/regains momentum. You’re badly mistaken if you believe SS is in trouble. it’s fully funded for many years, per the models.

  Posted by osori | June 14th, 2010 at 9:00 pm

• I invest in Vanguard because of their low fees, but the author is correct in that many 401ks charge excesses (and varied) fees.

  While that’s true, it should be noted that the 401(k) is a government-created beast. There’s no real need for it, but Congress, in its truly finite wisdom, decided to punish people for not saving for retirement. If, instead, they had just left well enough alone, we wouldn’t have high 401(k) fees.

  Posted by Bill Woessner | June 15th, 2010 at 8:58 am

• Hi Bill - I don’t understand your argument. 401(k)s are government-created? And? So are your dollars, yet I doubt you have an issue with those.

  Don’t 401(k) accounts offer tax-saving incentives that you don’t get with normal stocks or mutual funds?

  Any large fee charged with 401(k) is a money manager robbing you, not the US government.

  Posted by Jason | June 16th, 2010 at 11:48 am

• By creating the 401k, the government effectively created mini-monopolies where citizens are left to choose between the lesser of two evils. Your choices are A) invest with your employer’s 401k plan, with its potentially astronomical fees or B) shop around for investments with lower fees, but suffer higher taxes. If the government hadn’t created the 401k in the first place, citizens wouldn’t be left with this unenviable dilemma.

  As an aside, the same argument applies to health insurance. By promoting employer-provided health insurance (and providing hefty tax incentives), the government has effectively created mini-monopolies for health insurance as well. Your choices are A) participate in your employer-provided plan, with its potentially skyrocketing premiums or B) shop around for your own health insurance, but suffer the tax penalty. Again, an unenviable dilemma.

  Posted by Bill Woessner | June 17th, 2010 at 12:43 pm

• Hi Bill - I agree with your statements on health insurance, but not the 401(k).

  You point out that you have to choose between option 1 & 2, but prior to the creation of option1 you only had option 2.

  By the bye, you still have the option of a IRA or Roth IRA, both of which are government creations that are pretty sweet deals.

  Posted by Jason | June 17th, 2010 at 2:28 pm

• You point out that you have to choose between option 1 & 2, but prior to the creation of option1 you only had option 2.

  True. But where do you think the money comes from to pay for the tax cuts associated with option 1? Of course they raise taxes elsewhere. It’s just a shell game. If we did away with 401k, we could lower overall taxes. And yes, there is still the IRA and Roth IRA, but the limits are quite low - roughly 1/3 of the 401k limit.

  I just don’t get why the government feels it necessary to micromanage its citizens to this degree. There are tax incentives (or, conversely, tax penalties) for just about everything. Why? Why bother? This social engineering hasn’t served us well. And as Congress does more and more of it, I fear for where we will end up.

  Posted by Bill Woessner | June 17th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

• Okay, I see where you are coming from.

  Might I suggest that the government makes its own money and doesn’t need our tax dollars as revenue. In the case of the 401(k) (and IRAs) the government isn’t lowering its revenue, but is instead putting more cash in citizen’s pockets.

  Posted by Jason | June 17th, 2010 at 3:15 pm

• “#I guess I would have to say I disagree with the general idea of this article. This year Social Security will pay out more then it takes in. Meaning that it is cash negative today.

  Posted by WeCantPayThatTab | June 14th, 2010 at 1:32 pm”

  Only because the interest on the Trust fund is not considered as income.

  Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

  Posted by Monte Haun | June 19th, 2010 at 4:22 am

• An area that is not talked about much is the fact that women have never had parity with men since this system was formed. Just the fact that women have been paid $.65 on the dollar since at least 1940’s shows that women will be poorer in their old age unless their husband dies and they can collect on his social security. If anyone needs to have their benefits cut than it should be the men who have been getting a greater benefit and higher wages than the females. This should no way be construed as welfare either. Women worked in the same field as their male counterparts, but in the work place there was wage discrimination. Justice should sought after if anyone is going to change the system now.

  Posted by Beverly Barnes | July 29th, 2010 at 4:02 pm

• Beverly,

  The wages aren’t fair. That’s life. Get over it or quit work and stay home. If you choose the latter, and other women follow, then there will be more jobs for the rest of us and our wonderful, and highly intelligent, President can claim that he saved or created more jobs. That would make him look great and make us all love him ever more!

  Posted by Dufus | July 29th, 2010 at 4:30 pm

• The government needs to keep there paws out of the S.S. savings. This was put in by the people of the U.S. and natives of the U.S. as there one and only retirement income that they worked for years to draw from. Leave it alone???

  Posted by Billy | July 29th, 2010 at 5:37 pm

• Will there be a cost of living increase for 2011? Will it be closer to the REAL cost of living increase? It angers me that after I have worked and raised four daughters on my own, my social security income is too much to qualify for Medicaid Assistance, while my income is still not enough to live on. If I pay the state 606.00 per month, they would be my tie-in plan with Medicare. I can’t afford that or the premiums that are charged by private insurance companies. Something needs fixed!
  Regards,
  Sandy

  Posted by Sandy Johnson | July 29th, 2010 at 7:06 pm

• What I don’t understand is (I’m told) people from other countries can come here and apply for SS and have never worked and contributed to SS that are able to get it. We have to go through so much drama to get approved and we have worked for years and paid into SS and can not get it. This isn’t right.

  Posted by Linda | July 29th, 2010 at 9:17 pm

• 1. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a ‘T’).
  and will owe a minimum of 50 trillion with a T. That is past broke and is geting into the insolvent stage… Unable to even pay interest on its debt.

  2. The Social Security Trust Fund isn’t full of IOUs, it’s full of U.S. Treasury Bonds
  Treasury bonds are IOU’s.

  3.By law, Social Security’s funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit.8
  The revenue from socal security (The premiums) are merged into the general fund and spent. REDUCING the deficit. Paying back what has been promised ADDS to the deficit.

  4.Taking the premiums and spending them and paying current promises from the funds of others and not from earnings is called a PONZI scheme and is against the law,

  Why support a criminal enterprise?

  I look forward to your response.

  Posted by Tom Smith | July 29th, 2010 at 10:48 pm

• Linda, that is false. The truth is illegal immigrants do pay _into_ SS, to the tune of $6 Billion a year, but their taxes go into something called the Earnings Suspense File and they never see a penny in benefits.

  Everything in this article, while politically unpalatable for some, is factually accurate.

  Posted by Sam L | July 29th, 2010 at 10:59 pm

• Just like my piggy bank,
  If I borrow from it– I put back –what I borrowed.
  A Law! should be made to do Just that with S.S.
  But with a bunch of Cheating,Tax Dodging, Politicians, this
  would be hard to Pass. God Bless America (Please)

  Posted by Milton P | July 30th, 2010 at 6:55 am

• Tom Smith wrote: “The revenue from socal security (The premiums) are merged into the general fund and spent. REDUCING the deficit. Paying back what has been promised ADDS to the deficit”
  OK, the point? Is Smith saying that the article’s point, that SS can’t add to the national deficit, is somehow invalid because the SS funds were borrowed and must be paid back?? What strange reasoning. So let’s cut the working classes’ SS because Congress can’t or won’t raise enough revenue to meet its obligations, much of it incurred for tax breaks (under Bush) for the rich.

  Posted by Tye | July 30th, 2010 at 11:08 am

• I try to understand the political process,
  as well as the economic.

  The benefits of ss are paid out now from the premiums of the next generation. This system much like the ponzi scheme only
  works economically as long as the system/sceme is increasing.

  Politically benefits are traded for votes. But eventually the economic reality must be faced….Debt and broken promises.

  Posted by Tom Smith | July 30th, 2010 at 1:08 pm

• Sam L: I’d be interested in you explaining how illegal and undocumented immigrants, having no SS numbers, and working as non employee contract workers ever pay into the SS system. Anyone else care to respond to this?

  Posted by Chris | July 30th, 2010 at 2:11 pm

• Somebody tell me why converting SS to a real pension fund won’t work. Right now it’s a transfer system. Invest the trust fund in conservative market assets, use actuarial projections to age 100, and put the taxes paid into something tangible, not an accounting fiction like the “special” trust securities. The full faith and credit of the US government is the problem, not the answer!

  Posted by Gordo | July 30th, 2010 at 4:49 pm

• Can I have some of what you guys are smoking? Cause I’m going to need it.

  Supreme court decision states that SS is a tax for the privilege of working in the US and that the Congress can do what ever it wants with those funds. The Ponzi scheme that is SS is going to run out of suckers. The current accumulated debt comes to 13.2 Trillion dollars, and the unfunded liabilities are about 5 fold of that.

  Congress can at any time cut the funding for social security, and with our current dictatorship in the works it may just happen. Even if you taxed everyone at 100%, it would never be sustainable.

  Now if you want to publish the data you used to come to these remarkably insane numbers - then maybe i will agree with your point. But there are no treasure holdings for social security. And if there is would you please reveal the series number on the bonds and the other pertinent info like maturity date.

  Posted by Tony | July 30th, 2010 at 9:21 pm

• I am glad that the facts say social security sound because a lot
  of the elder need the money but the amount they get from–
  social security are small amounts because their yearly earings
  were small leave social security as is please.

  Posted by james-scales | July 31st, 2010 at 2:55 am

• The only thing right about “Dufus” is his name!! He has the audacity to say”..The wages aren’t fair. That’s life. Get over it or quit work and stay home. If you choose the latter, and other women follow, then there will be more jobs for the rest of us..” What alternate universe do you live in??!! As if women have the option these days to work or stay home? Many are the only breadwinner in their family especially when unconscionable deadbeat dads walk out on their obligations to their children. And with the costs of living even a two income family can be struggling to put food on the table. But no, women should “stay home” let the kids starve so the “rest” of you (men?) can have more jobs?! Go back to the “Ozzie & Harriet ” fantasy world you dwell in so real people can discuss the genuine problems we face.
  As for “Chris” question, often undocumented workers will use a “borrowed” SS number to get on a payroll and have the money deducted from their paycheck thereby adding to the system but never can draw on that benefit.

  Posted by Marian | July 31st, 2010 at 3:43 pm

• Ms. Altman, Move On.org is circulatng your article and serious debates are occuring over the facts of it; can you publish data to document what you state regarding Social Security; i.e. resouces for soundness of it; how the fund is no part of national defict, etc.

  Posted by Jean | July 31st, 2010 at 5:04 pm

• Jason wrote
  Might I suggest that the government makes its own money and doesn’t need our tax dollars as revenue.

  This is one that has always suck in my craw. When ever the Feds[ the actuall people decideing when to print more money and not a goverment agency] decide to print more money, they effectively devalue the rest of the money in circulation. If I were to contract to do a job for a given sum, based on what I can purchase with it, and between the time that I sign the contract and get payed, additional money is printed, they have effectively taken money out of my pocket. Sounds like taxation to me, although nobody seems to charcterize it that way. The even bigger problem is that the Feds are not elected and therefore it’s taxation without representation. I don’t think the founding fathers would have looked kindly on this situation.

  Posted by Ja'nette Hill | July 31st, 2010 at 9:47 pm

• If social Security is not broke and is as well off as you want us to believe than why where the cost of living increases cut off indefinitely. Second, there is no Social Security Trust fund, President Johnson co-mingled all SS funds into the General fund and everyone knows that’s broke.

  Posted by Ric | August 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 am

• Have any of you read the 2009 SSA Board of Trustees Report? Just read the intro… it says clear and plain that SS is not sustainable long-term. The projected year that the trust funds run out dropped 4 years from 2008-2009 (to 2037). From 2003 through 2008 reports, that projection only dropped 1 year from 2042 to 2041. (SOURCE: 2004 and 2009 reports from the SSA Board of Trustees). Here’s the first paragraph of the conclusion:
  “Under the long-range intermediate assumptions, annual cost will begin to exceed tax income in 2016 for the combined OASDI Trust Funds. The com­bined funds are then projected to become exhausted and thus unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2037. The separate DI Trust Fund, however, is projected to become exhausted in 2020.”
  Quick definition here: “The OASDI program consists of two separate parts that pay benefits to workers and their families—Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI). Under OASI, monthly benefits are paid to retired workers and their families and to survivors of deceased workers. Under DI, monthly benefits are paid to disabled workers and their families.”
  So, retiree benefits will go on, but disability benefits will be exhausted in 2020… 10 years from now. So don’t get hurt!
  Also, the report has a 75-year projection that comes with a suggestion by the board to either increase SSA tax rates by over 2.01% of a person’s income or reduce benefits to the equivalent of an “immediate and permanent reduction of 13.3%”. And those are considered the absolute minimum changes needed to stay solvent for that long.
  Finally, read up on our financial system. It is a fiat system, meaning it is based on credit (i.e., debt) and nothing else. We only print more money when someone takes out a line of credit (which snowballs up to about 100x the original line of credit you took out as each bank in the money trail between you and the Treasury can add 9x to that credit line and ask for that much money above what you need. So if everyone in the US paid off all our debt, it would effectively remove all money out of circulation. To print more money as a nation means we’ve taken out more credit against ourselves (because we the people are the only thing backing that credit, not gold or anything else of real property value).

  Posted by Brandon | August 2nd, 2010 at 5:38 am

• Social Security serves more than just retiree’s it serves those who have been disabled, along with those who’s income over their lifetime was at or below the poverty level. It was designed to make sure that at retirement those who could not afford to contribute to other retirement funds or savings accounts would have an income when they reached retirement age. It has served millions of American’s since it was inacted to live out there lives with a steady income. As we have all seen over the past two years 401k’s have there drawback as well, some loosing over half of there value in the economic downturn. They could have lost all of there values if our country and the world had gone into a total depression. Social Security however has the full faith of the US Treasury and none of its value has gone due to the economic downturn (recession). Safety and security of our retirement funds is paramount and the Social Security fund has that ultimate security. Giving American’s a secure retirement that they can depend.
  Life is not certain, but we should make sure that at retirement we all have the security of a dependable income to live out our retirement years. Our governments involvement in our retirement security is important to make sure that everyone has an income at retirement and that those who become disabled have the resourses to maintain the basics of life.
  The Social Security system has work well for decades and can still be viable throughout the 21st century and beyond. Just like with a business you make adjustments to what you charge for your service or product dependent on economic condition and other varibles. If we need to increase the SS tax then thats what needs to be done. There are answers and solutions to Social Security’s none of which have been offer here. If we continue to make every issue we face political and partisan we will grind our government to a stand still.. which will benefit no one.
  We have options and one should be to make Social Security whole to make sure that no American has to retire broke and unable to live there life out with dignity.

  Posted by Leonard | August 4th, 2010 at 2:39 pm

• love animals, love life!

  Posted by ChienChao | August 6th, 2010 at 10:05 pm

• @Brandon

  Its a shame I had to read dozens of hypothesizing retards before your informative and grounded response. Maybe if this article cited sources in its projections, the people commenting might be a little more informed.

  MoveOn is a grassroots political organization, I understand that, but when you hide the truth through your paid “scholars” in the name of a political agenda, the very tenets of democracy that hold this country together crumble like cookies. Shame on you and your staff Ms. Altman.

  Posted by Matt | August 8th, 2010 at 9:16 pm

• If we taxed the wealthy on more than the first $106,000 they earn, we could erase much of the shortfall. I’m not seeing why it makes sense to eliminate this tax on income that is substantially more than required to meet basic needs. Another element of a regressive tax system.

  Thanks to all who have expressed strong opinions without resorting to insults.

  Posted by Kathy | August 8th, 2010 at 9:54 pm

• You want higher participation in welfare? Then cut Social Security. You want more soup kitchens? Then cut Social Security. You want to risk communicable disease outbreaks or pay for more indigent medical services? Then cut Social Security. You want to trip over more homeless on the streets? Then cut Social Security. Social Security is neither a gift nor a ticket to individual comfort. Social Security was established to create a Secure Society.

  Posted by Donna | August 9th, 2010 at 1:49 pm

• I feel that if the ones not contributing into Social Security should not make rules on it. We have worked 20, 30, 40 years and now we are ready to claim our little $1000 plus Social Security check while they can still get their salary for life. Something is wrong with that picture. Let us go out with a little respect for working in the USA. Huh

  Posted by Jeraldine Mills | August 12th, 2010 at 12:32 am

• I don’t pay into the SS, but I will not draw from it either. I am a railroad worker and I pay into something called the Railroad Retirement Board…RRB. It predates the SS and is what the SS was designed after (if you hope to draw, thank american UNIONS because if they didn’t force their creation, your retirement would be invested into a shovel to dig your own grave!)
  A few years ago, legislators “borrowed” from our fund to pay off the national deficit just as others want to do so from the SS. The funny thing is that they never repayed. So now when I look at my paystub I pay for the first tier (just like your own witholdings for Social Security) and then I pay again into a second tier just to pay off that “loan”.
  If you use SS to do anything other than pay benifits, the same thing will happen to you. Either you will pay more SS or you will pay more taxes!
  Also, to those frigtened about the projected shortcomings. I would say that during any road, train, or plane trip you take from point A to point B, 90% of the time or more will be spent traveling in a direction that if you followed would take you somewhere far from where you are heading. Thanks to turns, hills, and even entire changes in direction you finally get to your intended target. There will be changes! The only thing we as “the people” (also known as the government) need to do is make sure to elect those who will protect our assets in a viable way.
  Another point. Economics and Accounting are opposites. What is good for one hurts the other. Sound accounting priciples will not save our economy! Read up on political and social economic theory and HISTORY instead of just speculating on what you would call “common scense”. Lest we all forget that eugenics was once the prevailing “common scense” argument that won the vast majoritie of support. If you dont know what that is……the holocaust was the ultimate realization of that concept. We live in a Republic, which is a type of Democracy, not just a Democracy becase the founding fathers knew all to well that people are smart, but groops of people are stupid!

  Posted by Ryan | August 12th, 2010 at 1:46 am

• If Orange Boehner and his fat assed buddies are so worried about our money, we paid into social security, then enact term limits on the congress and don’t allow them to have benefits for life when they retire. There isn’t a brain amongst them, and why don’t they try “living” on $700. dollars a month, and have me tell them that they are spoiled and that they would rather live on $700. / month rather than work. It is time for them all to go. every single one of them, gone, and a new 1 term Congress installed with no lobbyists to make them all millionaires.

  Posted by cb | August 12th, 2010 at 3:33 pm

• Nancy Altman, thank you for this article. However, I think you might have missed a few very important points — others seem to have addressed many of them. For example, how the SS surplus has been used to fund government borrowings by buying U.S. Treasuries. The accounting gimmick which was put in place during the Johnson Administration (i.e., the unified budget which combined the federal budget and social security budget) to hid the costs of the War in Vietnam and also allow Johnson’s Great Society policy to seem budget neutral, would make even an Enron executive blush. If you tell a lie long enough people start to believe it.

  The one point your article seems to miss and this is critical and goes to the heart of the discussion. If proper accounting methods were used (i.e., GAAP accounting) with respect to social security, the U.S. deficit to GDP would balloon to over 200%. The irony is that the federal government ultimately decides how corporations account for pension liabilities it uses different rules for itself. This is esoteric but important: GAAP accounting is set by FASB. FASB gains its authority to set accounting policy by the SEC. The SEC gains its power from the U.S. government.

  The true tragedy is that we live in a country based on the fundamental idea that the rules and laws apply to everyone, despite power and privilege, and everyone has an equal say in the governing process. However, that doesn’t apply to the government itself. There are the rules for the Federal Government and there are the rules for everyone else.

  Account for Social Security the way U.S. corporations account for pension plans and then let’s debate what the true cost of Social Security is and what the proper steps are to address its underfunding. One warning, the bond market will not like the answer and when half of the U.S. debt is held outside this country, it matters what the bond market things, trust me – go ask Greece or Argentina if the opinion of the bond market is irrelevant.

  Posted by Brian | August 18th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

• 1) Great dialogue that would be even better if it were being held by our elected officals in Washington and across the country. But hey, who in Washington likes to cloud the issue de jour with facts?

  2) The other part of the SS debate that I haven’t heard deals with the impact of raising the retirement age. Specifically, is anyone considering or are the elected aristocracy ignoring the possiblity that increasing the retirement age would increase unemployment to even higher levels?

  3) If we want to get out of this mess we really need to consider a turnover in Congress; those who have been in office for more than two or three terms probably need to go. I know that we may lose individuals with true talent and commitment to our country but the alternative does not seem to be working. I agreed with Senator Specter more often than not but was not terribly saddened by his departure. George Washington and the boys never intended for elected officials to quite their day jobs nor did he want a two party system. Thomas Jefferson wanted just a House of Representatives. Maybe they did have a crystal ball. See Einstein’s definition of insanity for more.

  Posted by John | August 23rd, 2010 at 12:02 am

• I understand that the recommendations of the deficit commission be submitted to the congress for an up or down vote. If the commission recommends cutting Social Security or raising the retirement age, the Congress needs to vote it down period. The Social Security Administration proposed four options for keeping Social Security solvent. Option 2 or 3 would be acceptable to most Americans I believe. One of these options should be enacted into law.

  Posted by John Schmitt | August 28th, 2010 at 6:07 pm

• Kathy wrote:

  If we taxed the wealthy on more than the first $106,000 they earn, we could erase much of the shortfall. I’m not seeing why it makes sense to eliminate this tax on income that is substantially more than required to meet basic needs. Another element of a regressive tax system.

  There is a cap on premiums because there is also a cap on benefits. And the system is not regressive; rather, those paying the maximum heavily subsidize those paying less. Check out the SS Administration website for an example:

  http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/retirebenefit1.html

  Note that the first person earns $1.44 million over their lifetime, and receives a $1543 monthly SS benefit. The second person earns $2.93M, and gets $2099; twice the premiums paid in for about 1/3 more benefit! You may still not think that represents their “fair share”, but it cannot be defined as regressive.

  Posted by Bill Tharalson | August 31st, 2010 at 5:58 pm

• This game, called democracy, is NOT to be misunderstood, for at the crust of it, are lives of individuals, who has paid into S.S. and our President, will NOT stand for one to gain and not the rest of us, for we ARE democracy!

  Posted by ELois Poole-Clayton | September 2nd, 2010 at 5:22 pm

Leave a Comment