The Clear Cut Kidder continues to spread the Democrats’ talking lying points on Social Security. The lies have gotten so bad that the Clear Cut Kidder has just undone himself. Here is an excerpt from his most recent post of lies:
There is one way to avoid the President’s proposed cut: Take some of your guaranteed benefit and gamble it in the stock market.
Again the lie of "guaranteed benefits" is used to con us into believing that current benefits levels will be available in the future. Jon Schaff has posted this excerpt form a Robert C. Pozen column:
Let us take as an example a medium-wage worker who will earn $47,000 in 2012 when progressive indexing will first be implemented ($36,500 in 2005). The critics have already proclaimed that such a worker retiring in 2045 at age 65 would receive 16% less under progressive indexing than scheduled benefits--$16,417 rather than $19,544 per year. Is this reduction from the schedule a "benefit cut"? If Congress does not enact Social Security reform, the system will default in 2041 and benefit levels will automatically be reduced by roughly 27% for all workers by 2045. So judged relative to payable benefits, the $16,417 received by the median-wage worker in 2045 would actually be an increase in benefits. That sum represents $2,150 more in Social Security benefits than the $14,267 that the system can afford to pay in 2045 absent major reforms.
Benefits that will be reduced by 27% under the Democrats do-nothing-plan are not "guaranteed benefits". The President’s progressive indexing plan lowers that impact to the middle class, eliminates it for the poor, and allows the wealthy to take the full hit. Calling benefits that will be reduced by 27% "guaranteed benefits" is an outright lie by the Democrats.
But wait...there is more. Keep in mind what the Clear Cut Kidder said about the dangers of gambling in the stock market as he spins this piece of BS:
But back to how the rich are going to avoid a benefit cut and how the bulk of cuts are going to be borne by the middle class. There is one assumption that must be made to understand this: The lower your income, the more likely you are to rely on Social Security rather than private savings for your retirement security. I say this because the more you earn, the more ability you have to save (in total and as a percentage) and the more risk you are willing to bear. There are of course, many factors that go into this, but I think what I’m saying is a reasonable assumption.
What is going to happen under "progressive" indexing is the wealthiest among us are going to be those most willing to remove themselves from the Social Security system and place their money in Bush’s privatization accounts. When a high earner is willing to take money out of the guaranteed system and take on risk in the stock market, etc., they are able to avoid the benefit cuts that "progressive" indexing calls for.
Did you get that, the Clear Cut Kidder just said that private accounts allow us to avoid the benefits cuts, that he wrongly said were guaranteed. By investing in the stock market through private accounts, we can avoid the 27% in benefits cuts that will be caused by the decreasing ratio of workers to retirees. The Clear Cut Kidder just undone himself with his pack of lies.
The liar is trying to have the argument both ways. The stock market is a bad idea but then it will provide the extra return needed to overcome the upcoming 27% Social Security benefit cut. Why not just allow us to make the decision?
Recent Comments