Social Security Cuts
-
Well, first you have to look at their ulterior motive - revising the CPI rate...
will also
RAISE TAXES ! (cpi is also part of the tax rate calc).
Gee, ya think Obamao didn't know that?
Yep. With dems, especially Obamao, look at the right hand when they want you to look at the left.
-
-
I'm sure if this passes, the savings will be funneled to the welfare programs.
-
I'm sure if this passes, the savings will be funneled to the welfare programs.
I'm sure if this passes, the savings will be funneled to the welfare programs.
Well with the skyrocketing number of people on SSI disability its already one in a way.
I wonder if significant savings could be made by more stringent rules for recipients?
WSS
-
Heck, Just curious, do you have an ulterior point here?
This seems like a rather modest and reasonable tweak.
WSS
-
You're cutting people's benefits. People rarely see that as reasonable.
Social Security isn't the big problem. All SS takes to solve is minor benefit cuts or smallish tax increases, or some combo of both. It's not a hard fix. Health care/Medicare costs are a much bigger problem and a much harder fix.
It's the same problem we always have: everyone wants to cut benefits, but not their benefits. And they don't know where the budget money is being spent.
And I don't really have "ulterior motives" for a message board made up of strangers. I don't know what you imagine those would be. I'm pretty sure it's just the way you imagine that everyone on the liberal side is underhanded and evil.
-
Take your pick. You'll notice Obama's proposal at the very bottom.
-
I can't imagine any group of people thinking that any slight lowering of the projected increase in their benefits would be reasonable.
I mean, really, you mentioned posturing do you remember the across the board hand wringing over the proposed cuts with the sequester?
Like I said I'm probably not a proper person to comment since my age puts me in the safe bracket but I really think we need to trim in a few places.
So I take it that you are opposed to that measure?
I know Bernie Sanders is, but I'm not sure if you consider him the base.
WSS
-
Depends on what it's coupled with. On it's own it's only somewhat attractive as a way to get SS in balance. I'm not automatically against it. But it's a concession to the right to bring them to the table on a long term deal, not a proposal because most liberals think it's a great idea. We'll see if they come.
-
It's always fun to watch how silent people get when it comes to actually going about the business of doing what it is they say they want done. Because usually they don't.
-
A trio of liberal groups is warning Democratic lawmakers who back cuts to entitlements programs that they could face a challenge from the left in the next election — but it’s unclear how serious the threat is.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and MoveOn.org have released sharply worded statements putting Democrats on notice that support for President Barack Obama’s budget – which proposes cuts to Medicare and Social Security – would be tantamount to betrayal.
PCCC, a prominent liberal group, also launched a website called NoBenefitCuts.com. It asks supporters to sign a petition pledging to “support primary challenges to congressional Democrats who support benefit cuts.”
“We’re very serious,” Adam Green, PCCC’s co-founder, said in an interview. “Any Democrat who votes to cut Social Security benefits shouldn’t call themselves a Democrat … It’s not in our minds an empty threat.”
-
So in his budget to be released next week, Obama is going to propose changing the way Social sEcurity benefits are calculated using something called "Chained CPI", which is basically a different way of calculating the cost of living increases beneficiaries get on the theory that traditional COLAs overstate the actual amount of the increases. So, the savings would amount to about $230 billion over ten years. Social Security beneficiaries would see slightly smaller checks, about .25% to .3%.
Who thinks this is a good idea?
So in his budget to be released next week, Obama is going to propose changing the way Social sEcurity benefits are calculated using something called "Chained CPI", which is basically a different way of calculating the cost of living increases beneficiaries get on the theory that traditional COLAs overstate the actual amount of the increases. So, the savings would amount to about $230 billion over ten years. Social Security beneficiaries would see slightly smaller checks, about .25% to .3%.
Who thinks this is a good idea?
Not me.
Why do we allow our government to keep fucking our contributors? Make the COLA changes to the benefits that the zero's of society get to collect.
-
I think it's pretty expected that no one is getting worked up over such a small proposal.
Point one percent isn't the stuff that dreams are made of.
Kind of like spending weeks bickering over beige or taupe for the new mailbox after your neighborhood has been destroyed by a nuclear strike
But as it is said often when fringe Republicans complain I don't know where else move on dot org is going
Maybe George Soros will now send his money to Marco Rubio?
Maybe this is a little more than a sista souljah moment.
At the very least it's a wee little bargaining chip to try and get even more taxes.
What do you think?
-
Again, take a look at some of the responses. No one wants their benefit cuts. They want someone else's benefits cut. But cutting some other benefit in the budget doesn't fix Social Security.
Contrary to public opinion - and yours, I'm gathering - Social Security isn't really in big trouble. It needs to be tweaked and reformed, but not overhauled. You're suggesting that the Chained CPI proposal is "Kind of like spending weeks bickering over beige or taupe for the new mailbox after your neighborhood has been destroyed by a nuclear strike." Well, it's not like that at all. Go back and look at that chart. All you need to do to fix Social Security for the foreseeable future is to make some of those proposals add up to .6% of GDP.
Fixing benefits to chained CPI gets you .2%. So, it takes care of 1/3 of the problem. That's not nothing. Raise the retirement age a year and you're halfway there.
Or to take Leg's post, he doesn't want to change the benefits formula, which I don't have a problem with. I'm not sure I want to cut benefits either. But he's got to know that if he doesn't want to do that, and whether he knows it or not, he's arguing for tax increases. Because that's the other option. Otherwise, you're not "saving Social Security."
Cutting benefits, raising taxes, or some combination of both. Those are the only options for "saving Social Security." They're all laid out below. Take your pick.
And this is where 98% of political conversations die - when voters have to face up to the fact that they're picking from two bad options. Everyone wants a free lunch. Well, there's no such thing.
Only in politics do people think you can fix a leaky roof at no cost at all.
-
Also, why do you think Obama is putting this on the table now - essentially conceding a major point before negotiations even (publicly) start - knowing he's going to piss off his base?
-
There are benefits to cut that don't impact the contributors like changes/cuts to Soc. Sec. do. We just don't want to do that because it impacts a large voting block.
-
Leg, if you want to keep future Social Security benefits at their current levels you've either got to tweak who receives those benefits and when, or you've got to find additional tax revenue. Or you do some of both. This isn't about what you keep insisting it's about. Cutting "programs for zeros", whatever those are, will not affect the solvency of the SS trust fund. SS has its own dedicated funding mechanism. Money comes in through FICA taxes, and money is paid out to retirees. That's pretty much all it does. Problem is, as you know, we're facing a huge wave of retirees.
Here's the gap that needs to be made up.
So if you want to keep benefits at their current level, you have to go through that chart and find one or a combination of changes that adds up to .6% other than the ones that fall under "Changes to the Benefit Formula."
Those are your options. Otherwise, the money isn't there to pay future retirees at the level you say you want to.
What's it going to be?
-
Neither. Drastically curtail Obamao's spending, cut Egypt's and all Arab countries' foreign aid,
stop buying billions of HOLLOW POINT bullets (read: NOT FOR PRACTICE)....stop buying thousands of armored cars,
stop investing in solar, wind power and electric cars, stop the stupid bailouts that didn't work, stop the stupid
constant lavish pres vacations. SS should never have been borrowed/taken from, and why does Obamao want to cut SS?
I'll tell you why. Because he wants to add millions of gov dependent illegals to it. That's why.
Obamao is a national disgrace and disaster. Even the left is realizing it.
He is making a problem far, far worse, then using that problem to expand his marxist agenda.
See the gun control bill by dimwitted Reid:
It contains language that loosely gives Obamao and holder's INjustice dept the right to have a national
registration of gun owners and ANY transport of any gun to even a son or daughter.
And yet, so many will be all completely wet in Egypt about it. Right to the very end, apparently.
-
See what I mean, Steve? When faced with tough choices, the majority of the American people bang their hand on the table and scream, "No, fix it the way I invented in my head!"
In 2010, Social Security paid out $713 billion in total benefits. That number was higher in 2011, higher in 2012, and then it keeps going up and up and up as the baby boomers retire. So you can stop pretending you can recoup the kind of money we're talking about by not buying as many bullets for DHS.
Anyone want to actually try it, like in the real world?
-
Ahh yes. It's a totally outlandish and ridiculous notion to suggest that the federal government in their entire existence has ever paid for a right pocket expenditure from money they "find" in their left pocket.
I know how SS works, professor. But thanks for the reminder.
Also to suggest that the fed gov resides in any realm of reality is laughable in itself. And before I get another lecture, yes I'm aware of the complexity & scale of the US budget, so I "can't compare apples to oranges" (make sure you've cleared plenty of space so you don't injure your finger when you wag it) - but how do you manage your budget at home when the heating bill jumps 20%? You don't just not do heat anymore (as the cat's already out of that bag). You adjust another area of your budget for that month (or any arbitrary length of time we choose here). And you don't just say "I get more money now (you're welcome)" to whomever is cutting those checks like our govt does either.
Lets try and abstain from using "reality" when discussing the US budget, and our tax system, shall we?
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login