Social Security is a deeply racist institution

Everyone who works pays into the Social Security system through a lifetime of "contributions," which are actually forcibly extracted by the government. But no one is allowed to draw full benefits until they turn sixty-five years of age. This is racially biased because white Americans have a greater life expectancy than black Americans--and an especially greater life expectancy than black men, who live, on average, shorter lives, while black women, white men, and white women all can expect to live past seventy years of age.

To make matters worse, the solvency of Social Security is in jeopardy. The result is that Congress will soon have to move the age of eligibility for full Social Security benefits to seventy years. This means that every demographic group within the population will be paying into the Social Security system. and everyone except the average black male will draw out.

Put simply, African American men are working all their lives to contribute to a system from which the average black man will never benefit. On top of that, he is not able to pass his contributions on to his offspring when he dies. Instead, the money--not just a simple majority of it but also a disproportionate share--will go toward creating a secure retirement for white people.

This could be compared to working on a plantation. The black man works, but the white man gets to keep the proceeds of the labor. "Letters to a Young Progressive by Michael. S. Adams

And to think of how all those racist liberals kept criticizing George Bush's attempt to privitize 1/6th of Social Security. I'll make sure that that salient point of Bush's platform agenda is noted and added to his legacy library.

 

Enter "Pigford", and all the other "social justice" reparations.

 

Yeah, these 'social justice' reparations are code in allowing leftists to call WHITE people in general racists for not readily accepting or kowtowing to their so-called civic needs or rights. The irony here is that it was the leftists icon FDR who created social security in the first place to push his socialist agenda, yet in the end its the black people and black men in particular who will suffer under Social Security's current construct. Go figure.

 

You make interesting observations, Libhater.....but you're giving progressives ideas for another level of "victimhood" and another level of "oppression" to attach to...and demonize "obstructionist" right-wingers over.

vis...if history is any guide, they'll be calling such "unfair", and demanding SS eligibility ages for blacks be adjusted accordingly...while vilifying anyone who would oppose such blatant "group" preference as "mean, greedy, racist regressives"

 

More victimhood to put on the progressive agenda? LMFAO! Yeah, I'm not too worried about that, since they've already globbed onto every imaginable victimhood start-ups we have left in this nation. The fact that not one leftist or one race baiting leftist has felt it necessary to defend one of their holy grails of liberal leadership (FDR) and of their socialism policy, i.e. Social Security's racist program tells me that they are running from the truth as fast as they can, and too chicken shiite to admit to their support of this veiled racist policy.

 

So is the entire US gov't, against whites.

 

While it is true that the govt hurts anyone who is a tax paying citizen, the emphasis on this particular thread is geared to showing the hypocrisy and down right silence coming from the left for their support of the liberal program Social Security and just how racist it has become towards blacks.

 

Don't forget to add that FDR himself said that Social Security would have to be at least partially privately vested within 30 years, to remain solvent without creating an undue burden on the government.
He also added provisions that would allow people to invest a portion of their required contributions privately ... much like President Bush's proposal ... but those provisions were never enacted.

 

Libhater talking about racism is hilarious, next up: David Duke complains that he's tired of being slandered by bigots!

Remember your older thread Libhater? The one where you said that you wished blacks/minorities would be shipped out of America so that it would be a WHITES only nation? I have the cached version right here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...IANS+only+AMERICA?‎"&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The demented ramblings of conservative racists always make for a great reminder as to why conservatives (and the GOP) are viewed as a RACISTS and a laughing stock to anyone who possesses a brain.

 

Why can't they just remove the caps and laws that essentially exclude billionaires from paying SS taxes like poorer folk instead of raising the retirement age/

 

I don't know....you tell me. Besides, what would the tinkering with billionaires taxes have to do with making sure blacks get the $$ out of a system they put into all of their adult lives? Even if they don't raise the retirement age, blacks will still get screwed out of receiving their bennies because of their short life spans (refer back to the OP for confirmation on that fact). There is no escaping the fact that the Social Security program is racist to the core.

 

those in poverty have always had a shorter life span regardless of race

 

Those getting aborted every year also have a shorter life span as well, regardless of race; it still doesn't address the fact that when taken as a whole the black race and more specifically 'black men' will be left out of receiving any of the monies they put into the SS system. Besides, those poor people most likely are on govt welfare programs, and thus don't pay taxes, and thus don't contribute to SS in the first place.

 

The widows of the deceased black males, having not built up an account in their own names, can draw benefits from their husbands' accounts. Fixes that problem, so, yes, black people do get some benefit from it.

Raising the retirement age is stupid. It works fine for lazy-azz entreprenuriall types, but the actual producers who do physical labor to put product on the shelf really struggle to hang in there for the current 66 years.

Raising the cap is the better idea. Most of the 1% scum don't want to retire anyway. Let them work till they croak and keep the fund solvent.

They need the working people more than working people need them, in a rational world.

 

These demographics were entirely true in 1935 when Democrats enacted Social Security.

FDR: Arch-racist?

Is the rest of the new Deal racist as well?


"...lazy-azz entreprenuriall types..."

Taxcutter says:
You gotta be kidding.

 

If your concern is that some folks get the short end of the stick because they die earlier, wouldn't it be better to keep the SS level as it is instead of raising it?

 

Because it is going broke at the current criteria.

The Boomers will polish it off.

Davis-Bacon is racist, too.

 

But look at that positives. Thanks to the tax cuts that SS in part paid for, the 1% became fabulous richer and have gotten a much larger portion of the nation's income (20%) and wealth (40%).

That's a good thing, right?

 

But these same people pay by far the largest part of the taxes.

 

Yeah, that point was referred to in the OP where raising the retirement age will kill any chances that black men would get their due bennies. The fact that black men die earlier than WHITE men still doesn't address the point that Social Security was a racist program from the get-go, and still is. Keeping the retirement age at 65 isn't going to help black men--they're still screwed thanks to liberal racism.

 

I agree with the OP, that since whites have a greater life expectancy than blacks social security could appear racist to blacks, since they wouldn't live long enough to collect their fair share as whites.

But its also racist to whites, in that whites generally work more than minorities and they have to pay into the social security system to support lazy minorities, who make claims for disabilities and other ways they game the system for early payments to avoid work.

 

"Lazy minorities".

No, there's no racism in the US and we don't need affirmative action.

 

You are talking about the same people in both of those statements ... now which one is it?

 

I've seen no evidence that SS was motivated out of some racial animosity against blacks. You're claim that SS is "racist" is baseless.

 

This thread topic brings to light and helps to heighten awareness regarding the little-known fact that the Social Security Administration (SSA) is indeed one of America's most egregiously racist institutions.

Virtually all of the SSA staff, from its local offices to its online, central headquarters is staffed by African Americans and other minorities. Consequently, non-minority applicants are met with a rude, harassing, bureaucratic wall of resistance when applying for social security benefits.

Whenever a non-minority applies for benefits online, SSA ,checking records regarding eligibility of applicants, can instantly know the race of an applicant, and treat the applicant accordingly. The non-minority applicant can anticipate a series of deliberately stubborn delays in the form of reverse racism. The non-minority must usually hire an attorney to force SSA to provide all the benefits to which they legally deserve.

And when elderly, non-minority applicants go to their local SSA office to apply for benefits (which 85% of them do), they are treated with disdain, disrespect, abuse, insults, purposely shuttled around from one department to another, forced to wait for days in some cases, and made fun of. The staff seems to consider non-minority mistreatment as a form of "get evenness" and blatant retaliation for alleged social injustice.

Notwithstanding the abuse, non-minority beneficiaries should take consolation in the fact that they have made personal sacrifices for racial diversity and multiculturalism. It's all good.