Arkansas Blog

Eisenhower wrote his brother Edgar on May 2, l956: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again.... There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt...a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." (source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041220/forum/13)

"Why in the world you'd want to tamper with the essence of the single..."

One has to remember the Republicans have been opposed to SS from day one. This became obvious in the 1936 election as they centered their election efforts by attacking SS. It has not ceased. The last GOP presidential candidate to openly attack SS was Barry Goldwater and he got crushed in 1964. Since then, the GOP's tactics have gone underground and diversionary. Remember Newt's comments in 1994 when the GOP won the congressional elections: "Now we can let it [SS] die on the vine."
Huckabee is a Republican.

Max, it pains me to remind you because you know as well or better than any of us...the huckster doesn't have a a clue...I get the same sort of feeling when I think of gwb and constantly have to remind myself that he is like a rock and doesn't suspect a thing.

Speaking of gwb, the Salon article (by Sidney Blumenthal) on his fixation with the western illustration he thought was demonstrating something completely opposite the original intent is a good read, it gave for me at least another view into his thinking, wait is it possible to have another view of gwb? Oh I forgot, its just more of the bush out in the brush.

This is sad if this is the "single most successful" government program ever".

Wasn't Social Security meant to be the lifeline that keeps you from starving? It has now become what many depend on for their retirement. Too many people now disregard any attempt to save for their retirement and expect the government to support them with SS benefits.

Many people now annually pay more into the SS system than they pay in federal income tax! And if you die with no children, (or with adult children) and no spouse, for all the thousands of dollars that you paid into your "forced governmental retirement plan", your family gets . . . $255 . . . to bury you with?

SS has many times helped the truly needy, but I choke on the warped statement that it has - lifted millions out of poverty - instead, it has mesmerized millions to remain in poverty under the false assumption that the government will take care of them in their (less than) golden years.

Isn't this what counselors call being an "enabler" or creating a "co-dependent" relationship?

Don't abolish SS - we have to keep it now - but if Big Brother is going to do something to help, he needs to overhaul the system to increase incentives for us to take responsibility ourselves for our own retirement.

Don, you forget it's more than a retirement program. Worker's disability and survivors benefits are part of it too. Do you feel those have been failures?

The legislation was passed in 1935 and wan't supposed to start paying monthly benefits to retirees until 192. But amid the poverty and suffering of the Great Depression, Congress mailed the checks out early. Ida May FUller got the nation's first monthly SS benefits check January 31, 1940. She was 65. She had paid taxes for three years. She lived to be 100 and eventually collected $22,888.92 in benefits over these 35 years on her payroll contribution of $24.75.

SS is always one generation behind. But it is undoubtedly the most POPULAR program to come out of the New Deal era.

A man without a clue!

It's for sure that a man who can't control his own son (let's not forget the one who tried to board a plane with a gun) can't lead a nation.

From the AR Times:

A blogger for The New Republic provided this nugget from the campaign trail:

"Checking out a rental car at the Enterprise counter at the Charlotte, North Carolina airport, I mentioned I was heading to South Carolina to do some work on the primaries. 'We just put Mike Huckabee's son in a car!' the clerk said, and then added, 'He wanted the most expensive one we had.'"

Wonder if he's even read "My Pet Goat"?

Wasn't Social Security meant to be the lifeline that keeps you from starving? It has now become what many depend on for their retirement. Too many people now disregard any attempt to save for their retirement and expect the government to support them with SS benefits.
By Don K
<<<<<<<<<<<

Don, Just how much do you think anyone who makes say... 20.00 per hour or less should be able to save in todays economy? I use 20.00 because it is very close to what one would need to earn today to have the purchasing power of a minimum wage earner in the early to mid 1970's. last i checked.. all lower wage earners, including the vast majority of illegals.. pay 15 plus percent of their gross income into SS fund.

Also it takes just a bit more than paying for food to, you know, survive.. Assuming the home is paid for.. there is still basic upkeep of ones home as well as taxes, utilities, clothing, medications, transportation and insurance.

Re Huck.. he's just a thief like every money grubbing GOPer and many a Dems.. rearranging the SS furniture and or borrowing from the fund.. is just a fancy way for the rich to steal from the poor.

Keyotay is the classic George W. Bush-Newt Gingrich thinking. They do not understand how the system works.
Cato stepped in to enlighten them a bit. SS is an insurance program and we sure as hell don't won't a failure and drunk like G.W. Bush getting their hands on it. Nor do we ever want a miserable money manager like Huckebee having any control over it.

Donkey, you're little story about a widower only getting $255 is not touching. It's stupid. You appear like Huck, Newt and Bush to have no understanding of annuities which is what the program was designed to be. But anywaz, I do encourage you to keep drinking the kool-aid and hence, creating more death for R's in general. One half of GW MonkeyBoy's decline is due to his attempt to undo S.S. So since none of you have the ability to learn how it works then keep on with your platitudes. We need many fewer Rs in this world.

I knew two women who lost their husbands in Fay when they were in their 30s with young children at home. Without S.S. they would have not made it on their own.

>>He'd give people a lump sum of their Social Security money to spend or invest rather than lifetime monthly payments.<<< Huckabilly

Of course he would never be allowed to do this by more mature and responsible people (adults) in charge. But it makes for campaign candy for those illiterate, ignorant who cannot or will not think. If we had a responsible media they would take this one apart and question him about it.

Don, you forget . . . Worker's disability and survivors benefits are part of it too. Do you feel those have been failures?-Posted by: Cato
********
I did not say SS was a failure - I just said it was sad if this was the "most successful" government program ever.

As you mentioned, there are positive aspects to SS - just not enough to make this the stellar deal that Max refers to.

last i checked.. all lower wage earners, including the vast majority of illegals.. pay 15 plus percent of their gross income into SS fund.-Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR
********
Eureka:
Probably ought to check again. Lower wage earners (including illegals who aren't paid in cash) pay 7.65% of their income into SS (not 15+%).

Donkey, you're little story about a widower only getting $255 is not touching. It's stupid. . . .You appear . . .to have no understanding of annuities which is what the program was designed to be. . . I knew two women who lost their husbands in Fay when they were in their 30s with young children at home. Without S.S. they would have not made it on their own. -Posted by: eLwood
********
LWood:

Sorry, Ma'am. I don't know many prudent annuity investments that require me to pay into them for a lifetime with the prospect of getting -0- in return.

Maybe if you limited your description of SS to a disability insurance policy, your tirade would make more sense. You purchase protection, but you don't get a return unless you get disabled.

Gee - then why don't you just buy a disability policy instead of pay into SS? The answer - we have to be protected from ourselves - there are some individuals who suffer misfortune and need welfare to get by - but there is the vast pool of others that are unwilling to make the sacrifice necessary to insure against a future disability. The responsible must protect the irresponsible.

Not sure why my touching little story about the "widower" (your sexist comment duly noted - it could have been a widow) was stupid. Are you saying this isn't true?

Regarding your two young widows with young kids. How unfortunate that they were unable to remarry - they represent a pretty good example of what SS is designed to protect. Of course, there are many other examples where single parents dealt with the harsh circumstances differently and sought employment and paid child card for their children - not an ideal choice at all and not one I would want, but in desperate times, you undertake difficult solutions.

Don, whatever the current rate an employee sees deducted from their check is matched by the employer.. Which is just a fancy way of making poor hourly workers feel better about what they see missing on the stub but definitely the cost of doing business to employeers and tax on gross income for workers. So as I said.. it's a bit over 15 percent.

SS was instituted because people got appalled at the old people begging on the streets because they hadn't been able to save money on their low wages or because their investments had gone away with the stock market crash. Why do people want to see that again? Why do people want to let the wealthy corporatists have such control over people that they can work them all the way into the grave?

So as I said.. it's a bit over 15 percent.-Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR
********
No - That is NOT what you said.

Your exact statement was - all lower wage earners, including the vast majority of illegals.. pay 15 plus percent of their gross income into SS fund.

As an employer, I am well aware that the wage earner pays 7.65% and the employer pays 7.65%.

Its OK to admit your mistake. Occasionally, I have to do that too . . .

BWC:
Always interesting to see third-hand stories getting passed around as fact.

So, is there any substantiation to this little rental car smear? Or is this just one of those cute, fabricated anecdotal snippets you guffaw over as you gleefully pass it around? Just tasteless enough to be believable but not so far out that it would be obviously bogus.

Whether or not it is true, doesn't matter, 'cause if its not true . . . well, it should be. Right?

DonKey -- it's unfortunate those two young widows were unable to remarry? With that attitude still making the rounds, it's a good thing they had other options.

DoIG:
I don't presume that "unable" is any reflection on young widows who do not remarry.

There may not be any viable candidates in their community.

Their love may have been exclusive and they have simply chosen not to remarry.

Bottom line - My factual observation is that young widows or widowers, even with small children, typically re-marry.

Not my attitude, just a factual observation.

And I agree with you - it IS good that they had other options.