Who Hijacked Our Country

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

The Galveston “Alternative” to Social Security

It’s January 2013 and President Rick Perry has abolished Social Security. Let’s put a positive spin on things and see how the Galveston Alternative will work for the rest of the country.

In the late 1970s, county employees in Galveston, TX opted out of Social Security. They opened personal savings accounts instead. Rick Perry, in his book “Fed Up,” says:

“…employees in those private plans, having exercised their liberty at Washington’s sufferance, are reaping the benefits.”

And Herman Cain said that retirees in Galveston are “making at least 50 percent more than they would ever get out of Social Security.” (That statement was debunked by a fact-checking site.)

Basically, if you made a ton of money during your working years, you’ll enjoy a nice cushy retirement with the Galveston program. On the other hand — according to the Government Accountability Office — the lower your income and the longer you live after retiring, the less you’ll benefit from this program compared to Social Security.

The financial planner who devised the Galveston plan said:

“We did not weight it in favor of higher- or lower-income people. You put your money in, you invest it, and you get your money out.”

Also, unlike Social Security, payments under the Galveston plan do NOT increase with inflation.

No wonder the Free Marketeers like this “alternative” so much better.

A professor from Syracuse University said:

“If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years of retirement, maybe you’ve done better. For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’”

So there you have it. This might be what we’re all looking at in 2013. Smile.

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Need we remind the masses that Federal Employees aren't part of the Social Security System neither?


September 14, 2011 at 8:59 PM  
Blogger Jerry Critter said...

There is one constant in the United States -- republican plans always favor the rich.

Trickle down is exactly that. The majority of the benefit goes to the top and the dregs trickle down to the rest of us.

September 14, 2011 at 9:05 PM  
Anonymous S.W. Anderson said...

The Galveston plan is an important way station along our racetrack to the bottom.

Jerry, you're saying they actually let you get dregs? Lucky you. ;)

September 15, 2011 at 12:50 AM  
Anonymous Jolly Roger said...

It may not matter. Every indicator there is says that all hell will break loose in 2012. The election cycle may amount to cadaveric spasms at this point. It is for certain that we don't have even one major candidate for President who has even a clue as to how bad it's gotten.

People without hope, do some pretty nasty things.

September 15, 2011 at 1:16 AM  
Blogger Demeur said...

Of course it trickles down, from the Gates' to the Buffets' or is it the other way around I've forgotten.

September 15, 2011 at 6:01 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

this where I agree that anyone making (and we have to put a minimum on it)a certain amount without Social Security and they get lifetime benefits from a Union job or can afford a private plan should have to do "their fair share" and not collect SS and Medicare. Leave it available for those who depend on it.

September 15, 2011 at 11:43 AM  
Blogger Jerry Critter said...

It doesn't work that way Lisa. SS is an insurance plan. Are you suggesting that the wealthy with health insurance not use it because they can afford to pay their medical bills?

September 15, 2011 at 11:59 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Erik: I didn't know that. I know teachers get Social Security.

Jerry: Yup, just another trickle-down scheme.

SW: Good description. Bottom, here we come.

JR: Enough of that sunny optimism.

Demeur: And sometimes even a mere millionaire will get trickled on.

Lisa: That's a valid opinion but I agree with Jerry's answer.

September 15, 2011 at 1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Even the Filthy Rich are entitled to Social Security Benefits pocketing their little checks each month and taking advantage of benefits like the death benefit to help "pay" for their million dollar funerals.

Doesn't matter if they ever put into it or not.

Efforts to change that have always been blocked by the ever faithful Republicans whom you would think since they despise SS so much would be glad to get anybody off the rolls they could but...

If we can't even get them to pay more taxes then how can we ever expect to stop them from receiving SS?

My Solution? Put the Federal Employees and Congress on the System, and give them a 401K. They will fix it.


September 15, 2011 at 1:27 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Erik: Excellent point.

When John Edwards was running for president in 2008, he promised to take away Congress' government-paid health benefits; they'd have the same coverage (or lack thereof) as the rest of the population.

I never knew if the president had the authority to do that, or if it was just a talking point for Edwards. I wish Obama would do exactly that, if he has the authority.

September 15, 2011 at 4:03 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 16, 2011 at 9:43 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

My Solution? Put the Federal Employees and Congress on the System, and give them a 401K. They will fix it."

wow sounds rather Tea Partyish to me, be careful Erik.

September 16, 2011 at 9:43 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

It doesn't work that way Lisa. SS is an insurance plan. Are you suggesting that the wealthy with health insurance not use it because they can afford to pay their medical bills?

OK so how's this the rich only get back what they put into it.
Maybe then SS is unconstitutional being we are forced to pay into it.

September 16, 2011 at 9:49 AM  
Anonymous S.W. Anderson said...

Lisa, what you're suggesting is means testing SS. That's bad business, practically, ethically and politically. The fundamental basis of the whole system is that it's universal. Everyone except exempt government employees and those on the Railroad Retirement System pay in and when they reach 62 or beyond, they collect back. Start messing with that and you will weaken the system and likely put it on a path to being destroyed.

September 16, 2011 at 8:41 PM  
Anonymous S.W. Anderson said...

Lisa, please stop and use your head. Social Security began operating in the mid-1930's, to the predictable howling about socialism and government controlling people by withholding their checks if they weren't politically correct, and on and on. I'll give you three guesses who was howling making wild charges.

If SS was unconstitutional, it would've been killed off in the courts a very long time ago. In fact, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

We have a democratic republic, Lisa, not a libertarian or anarchist free-for-all. A majority of citizens, acting through their government, can do things like require people to get auto insurance and retirement insurance, and have a military draft.

Trust me, you wouldn't like life in a libertarian or anarchist free-for-all for long. You might think you would, but you wouldn't.

September 16, 2011 at 8:52 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home