Political Economic Stances On Social Security

In “The Social Security Problem”, Max Moore discusses the fearful reality of Social Security running out of funds. He states that the U.S. Department of the Treasury predicts that Social Security funds will run out by 2041 and action must be taken in order to prevent this (134). In his essay, he explains how the depletion of Social Security funds are a result from a decreasing retirement age, decreasing fertility rate, and shrinking work force. These things contribute to an increased population relying on Social Security, an increased population of the elderly, and a decreased ratio of workers paying for those beneficiaries (135). Moore explains the proposal of George W. Bush to make Social Security partially privatized; allowing young workers to invest their retirement savings into their own account. This would result in people putting their retirement on the line in

The social welfare system in the United States can be a controversial topic especially now with the new presidential elect. For this paper I was assigned to look into two different peoples perceptions and attitudes on the social welfare system. I looked into how they perceived the system and whom they believed benefits from this system. Throughout this paper the identities of the two people I interviewed will not be revealed. I will simply refer to them in pronouns. My goal during this interview was not to educate my two interviewees so some of the information contained in this paper may not be accurate. Throughout this paper the two interviewees opinions will be stated and their opinions will then be compared and discussed. Although the whole population of the United States is experiencing the same welfare system each individual perceives and has different beliefs about the system.

For many years the social security program has been operating successfully. In recent times however, it is becoming apparent to some that social security is in need of reform. Their argument is that with the amount of people getting older in the next couple of decades, there will not be enough money left in the social security reserves to pay for everyone who needs it. That is why the idea of separating social security up into private funds has been brought to the attention of the American citizens. This idea of reform has been around for quite a long time; however it has been pushed on by pro reform supporters more in recent times because they think it is necessary for the

Debates over Social Security have been ongoing since its inception in 1935 until today. The trend seems to be toward an increasing percentage of the American public, across party and demographic lines, in favor of strengthening Social Security funding, and a willingness to pay more to preserve and even improve benefits. However, the trend towards privatization of Social Security is also on the rise. What is not clear is whether Americans favor privatization because of fears that the Social Security Trust Fund is living on borrowed time.

Privatization of the United States Social Security system could actual be more efficient than the publicly operated system. Chile switched its public retirement system to a privately ran system to a less expensive system that has been fairly successful (Bosworth). Social Security privatization is overall a better option because it will increase the rate of the returns of its recipients. American 401K invested in US treasury bonds received between a 1.9% to 4.2% rates of returns while the average person born in 2004 will receive a rate of return of 1.7% (Bosworth). These bond options are as stable as a regular Social Security option is because both are provided by the government but a privatized account allows workers to pick higher yielding accounts. Privatized accounts allow for workers to also invest in the stock market at a higher risk reward basis. Survivor benefits from the death of a family member who paid into Social Security received from 75% to 71.5% for at least 10 years (Survivors Planner). This is the main flaw of the current Social Security system is that the result of an early death, the worker's family is at a significant disadvantage economically as well as emotionally. This lead to the main argument brought up by Barry Bosworth chair of international economics and Gary Burtless chair of senior fellow economics that the privatization of Social Security

As many old laws and policies get older they develop to be still relevant in the citizens daily lives. Throughout time there have been many forms of programs that have been like Social Security. This is because through time humans have had many economic uncertainties that have worried them about “unemployment, illness, disability, death and old age” (8). There has been always a need for economic security. In many cultures and throughout time there have been many ways that their citizens have received economics securities. The traditional form of economic security came from “assets; labor;

The passing of the Social Security Act generated a social insurance program that protected a multiplicity of people by supplying a monthly benefit to societal individuals age 65 and older who were no longer actively working; it was a means of income to individuals once they retired and was based on the person’s payroll tax contribution (Martin & Weaver, 2005). The longer amount of years a person was employed, the higher their benefit amount is set to be. Social weighing was a method they used to guarantee that the lower earning people receive a respectively greater income than their past earnings. (DeWitt, 2010). Not long after the Social Security Act was passed, legislation had considerable amounts of amendments to the original Social Security Act of 1935, and in 1939 the notion of economic security became family based; which it was then modified in order to supplement benefits to the spouse or young children of a retired worker, also providing welfare to a household who lost the loved one that was a covered worker (King & Cecil, 2006). In addition, the Social Security amendments of 1939 altered the benefits to be given to earlier participants and not focusing on giving benefits to future members in the Social Security program, also causing the arrangement of welfare to be provided to families rather than just an individual (DeWitt, 2007). Social Security being emphasized as an insurance rather than a savings, and carrying payroll tax money into the future would have

The U.S. Social Security program is designed to aid residents in need through welfare subsidies. The programs are provided by organizations on federal, state, local, and private levels; and help to provide eligible residents with food, shelter, healthcare, education and money. Aid is provided through financial aid for college education, unemployment disability insurance, food stamps, pensions for eligible low-wage workers, subsidies for housing, and health insurance programs for public employees (Feldstein, 2005; Krugman, 2007).

The Social Security Act was originally one of my New Deal Programs to deal with the instability of retirement in the United States but I saw the opportunity that it could also do more than just that. The good people of the U.S. cannot always control whether they keep or lose their jobs. To combat unemployment rates, the SSA will act as a safety net for people that have been laid-off until they could find another source of income. Money will be taken out of an employee’s paycheck to help pay for Social Security. Two percent of all paychecks will be affected. Older Americans, the handicapped, and dependents were also given the money. In the beginning, about sixty percent of the workforce will be covered by Social Security but I predict that in about sixty years that ninety-five percent of the workforce will be covered. “Initially 60% of the workforce was covered by Social Security (by 1995, 95% of the workforce was covered)” (Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum - Our

portion of the retiree’s income. In order to provide these benefits to retirees a 6.2% tax

Similar to what I had mentioned earlier, the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) was active in drafting legislative bills which benefited the interests of a public agenda. This agenda kept workers and their demands in mind. “Welfare capitalists had always thought of government involvement in social insurance as primarily a way to keep “progressive” employers from being undercut by low cost competitors” (Scokpol 158). By this, they were trying to instill some form of protection or regulation of capitalism. To better understand our current stances on social policy, we must look at the difference between universal and targeted social policies. Currently, as stated earlier, social security is our only form of social welfare in the United States. Surprisingly, no one is in favor of reforming or removing Social Security. This is partly due to the fact that many feel that because they have “contributed” they must have the privilege to reap the benefits when they need them the most. However, the idea of a “social” safety net for other policies was not so welcome, and that hostility still exists today. With national budget always being a contested issue, the proposal of a government funded social welfare program is

The Social Security Act passed in 1935, “was a social, collective insurance program designed to protect the American people from the turmoil that was always present in a capitalist economy” (WBA 447). As different people were mandatorily taxed based on their income, their contributions were collected to fund a social insurance program that protect all citizens in the United States. The purpose of this Act was to tax more money from the rich people and spend the money on those who need financial assistance. Although the New Deal policies tried to redistributed the national wealth and provide equal benefits through the Social Security Act, many people who had limited economy actually paid money to build the system. Moreover, “employers could, theoretically, pass the cost onto workers by taking it out of their wages” (SR177).

The first take home message that I would like to draw attention to is how the social welfare state shapes people's lives, experiences, and life chances in a way that seems only to benefit the agenda of the federal government. According to Hick (2014), the liberal (reluctant collectivist) ideology has a focus on many principles such as “pragmatism, liberty, individualism, the inevitability of inequality and humanism” (p. 80). The liberals point of view is directed at addressing the controversy about the difficulties that vulnerable groups are facing with securing social insurance program benefits (Hick, 2014). In essence, the liberal are in support of the government's limited involvement in regulating the free market and private property rights

A little over 60 years ago the nation struggled through what was, up to then, the most dramatic crisis since the Civil War. The economy was uprooted after the crash of the stock market and the country's financial stability destroyed. One of the many steps taken to alleviate the burden on the American people was that of the passing of Social Security Act of 1935 and its amendments by Congress and the President, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Under the provisions of the Act, the government would take on the responsibility of taxing the income of all working Americans and returning the money through numerous public benefits and programs. Now the nation faces an economic and political problem with the program

The terms ‘socialism’ and liberalism’ are used a lot nowadays, and many people often mistake one for the other. In order to differentiate between these two terms, one must keep in mind the clear-cut differences by defining the prevailing ideology of each term. The tenets of socialism assert that the state should wield total economic power by manipulating prices of goods and wages of workers.