“,privatizing Social Security..”

As someone who will never see SS, I would like to have the same deal congress gives themselves.

“ultra-conservative.,”

The neo-cons are not conservative, they are criminal. Don’t make conservative a “dirty” word the way neo-cons did liberal.

But as far as the Chamber having a bat-shit crazy agenda, you put the needle on the record; (link...) see on the issues.

And many municipalities fund this organization with tax dollars.

As someone who will never see SS, I would like to have the same deal congress gives themselves.

That's what I thought when I was 28 (25 years ago). Then I saw how it helped my parents when I was 40. Now I'm counting on it, and fighting for it to be there for you, too.

Social Security is one of the greatest social programs in history.

R. Neal, did I read correctly that you are sympathetic to the ILR's "cause" of criticizing a professional trade group for changing its name?

www.herstonlaw.com

I'd vote to have the a choice. You're right for those who would rather have the government make their retirement investments. I personally get a better return in private sector.

All the programs set up decades past are based the hope that future leaders were going to be good stewards. I trust me with my money.

R. Neal, did I read correctly that you are sympathetic to the ILR's "cause"

K.O. not sure how you got that from this:

The ILR submitted an attack ad to run on this site, but it was rejected. Now they are sending Tennessee bloggers a press release, and for some reason think I might be sympathetic to their cause.

I thought I had been pretty clear in the past regarding my belief that trial lawyers are the last line of defense between regular people seeking justice and corporations who are beholden only to profits for shareholders.

Not sure how on earth you got the idea that I felt differently.

So, no, you did not read it correctly. Guess I will have to learn to write more clearly in the future for lawyers who might be reading. :)

As someone who will never see SS, I would like to have the same deal congress gives themselves

How bad is it that a supposedly well-informed politically-engaged progressive believes this?

Even if not one penny of money from the general appropriation is added to social security payouts (paying off the so-called trust fund), even if SS taxes aren't raised on anybody (not even on salaries over $90,000), even if the retirement age doesn't change from what is it set to by current law (i.e., rising to 67 over the next x years), even if immigration is held to its current level, and even if growth over the next 20 or 50 years is well below the trend line (the so-called conservative forecast), social security is projected to have enough money coming in to pay out 70 cents on the dollar of expected benefits, based on the 75-year projection.

Tweak any of those and you'll be getting full benefits, just like our parents.

Now Medicare is a totally different story, but, please, this is the kind of thing that leads people to think that privatization is a good idea. Do yourself a favor, go read Josh Marshall or Kevin Drum or Brad Delong or Angry Bear or somebody from Spring of 2005, which is the last time we were fighting this battle.

Yay, mjw! Thank you for swatting down the BS about how Social Security is going under. It's a vital program that will keep chugging along with no or minor changes, as long as we don't bone it up.

And in response to this:

I'd vote to have the a choice. You're right for those who would rather have the government make their retirement investments. I personally get a better return in private sector.

All the programs set up decades past are based the hope that future leaders were going to be good stewards. I trust me with my money.

... no one is stopping you from investing your money. That's what your 401(k), IRA, savings bonds, money markets, stuffed mattress, etc., are for. But if the market tanks, the banks go under and the mattress burns, Social Security will be there to keep you from starving in your old age.

It's not about getting rich. You can get rich on your own time, if that's what makes you happy. It's about ensuring a basic, decent standard of living to the old and the sick. It's about the social contract. Shame on anyone who wishes to undermine that for their own gratification.

How bad is it that a supposedly well-informed politically-engaged progressive believes this?

Save your labels for yourself. If progressive means I have to suck on another government teat, consider me weaned.

But if the market tanks, the banks go under and the mattress burns, Social Security will be there to keep you from starving in your old age.

You have been institionalized. We send our local taxes up so they can come back down in large bundles essentially for roads and schools. Our schools are local and run by local people. Our road building equipment is here and run by local people. The main role for a federal government is to protect using our military. So what has the federal government done, they have taken our local forces (the guard) and sent them to fight and die.

We have a local solution for the indigent and elderly in the form of churches and civic groups - i.e. you and me.

If you keep looking to DC for your life's answers, you will be disappointed.

Save your labels for yourself. If progressive means I have to suck on another government teat, consider me weaned.

Sorry, Average Guy, apparently I had a memory blip and forgot you weren't one of us lefties. I didn't mean to label you.

Nonetheless, you are still wrong about whether you will get Social Security. You can refuse it, of course, but it will be there for you if you need it.

I think you have more faith in the ability of local governments to address the varied needs of the citizens of this vast country than I do. Personally, I have never been much of a federalist. I live in the United States. I'm an American. I like knowing that I'll have the same social insurance when I retire whether I live here or in North Dakota. If I don't need it, well, that's all to the good.

I'd also like to take the states out of the health care business which is overwhelming them. And one could say that if the federal government designs a highway to carry goods and people across the country, vastly increasing the traffic that flows through a given locality, that maybe the federal government should be responsible for keeping that road maintained.

I could be convinced to support a well-designed consumption tax, but the sales tax isn't one, and the fact that the state of Tennessee relies almost solely on the sales tax for its revenues leaves us scrabbling to make any progress in education, protecting the local environment, etc.

And social security could not be replaced by churches and civic groups. You have no idea how many people are out there barely scraping by on social security and maybe working a job at Wal-Mart, too. If social security disappeared tomorrow, the social upheaval would be vast as millions of people moved in with their children, leaving still millions to be supported on some local dole. If you think you'd see a penny of your payroll taxes back in your pocket under the circumstance, you're wrong. (What, have no parents to support? Then why aren't you giving every penny to your local church or civic group? How selfish are you?)

We have a local solution for the indigent and elderly in the form of churches and civic groups - i.e. you and me.

So in the absence of millions of elderly people impoverished by the lack of Social Security, churches and civic groups have their coffers running over with cash? I must have missed that story. Let's hope there's plenty of it to go around if Average Guy and his ilk succeed in bringing down Social Security, because 40 percent of seniors who are living above the poverty line today would be below it if not for Social Security.

If you're happy with the thought of our parents and grandparents begging at the doors of churches and food kitchens to survive, you have a stronger stomach than me. I'd rather we sustain the system where they get a check every month in payment for their contributions during their earlier years as workers, parents and citizens.

And that money does come from "you and me." We're the government. Social Security is one mechanism we use to share the wealth. The Bushies tried to bring it down and failed miserably, so I assume that "we the people" are still happy with this program.

Our road building equipment is here and run by local people.

The people and equipment might be local, then again they may not, but most of the money is federal. For work on a federal or state highway, the federal match is typically 80 or 90 percent. Anyone who's offended by this should avoid driving I-40, I-75, Cumberland Ave., Broadway, Kingston Pike, etc.

The ILR would have us all beleive that 90% of all tort dealing wih business is frivolis. What would you expect from an enity that receives the majority of its funding from the businesses that are invoved in the defendant side of these lawsuits.
There are thousands of industries that strive to correct faults and products that are discovered every day. That is the cost of doing business in our world today.
Many companies have taken their industries overseas to avoid the responsibility of a safe work environment as well as concerning themselves with being resonsible for the environmental impact their manufacturing causes. IE: Mosanto Chemical in Bophal India.
Business needs a monetary incentive to change, whether through the market place or courts.
The Government uses tort on a regular basis to gain the results it wants why not WE THE PEOPLE???