Social Security Cuts
-
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 -
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?
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?
Let me guess...
So he can tie it to yet another round of tax hikes?
Is it your impression he's going to raise the retirement age? Would you guess that means testing is in order?
And you are correct, nobody wants their benefits cut.
Unfortunately nobody wants to pay taxes either.
Unless of course the idea is to only tax those other guys.
Plenty of people like that idea.
WSS
-
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?
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?
Why? It's just math + political reality, neither of which you seem to want to live in.
So do it. Come up with your very own Al Gore lock box plus. A new, dedicated funding mechanism worth tens of billion a year.
The US GDP is 15.09 trillion. .6% of that is around 90 billion. Go right ahead.
I apologize if I'm not wowed by suggestions that this can be done by cutting "programs for zeros."
-
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?
Let me guess...
So he can tie it to yet another round of tax hikes?
Is it your impression he's going to raise the retirement age? Would you guess that means testing is in order?
And you are correct, nobody wants their benefits cut.
Unfortunately nobody wants to pay taxes either.
Unless of course the idea is to only tax those other guys.
Plenty of people like that idea.
WSS
Let me guess...
So he can tie it to yet another round of tax hikes?
Is it your impression he's going to raise the retirement age? Would you guess that means testing is in order?
And you are correct, nobody wants their benefits cut.
Unfortunately nobody wants to pay taxes either.
Unless of course the idea is to only tax those other guys.
Plenty of people like that idea.
WSS
Could it be because he wants a long-term deal, the grand bargain, because he thinks long-term debt is important and doesn't want to continue this cycle of going from one politically manufactured crisis to another, so he's willing to put SS benefit cuts on the table in order to achieve that goal?
-
Let me guess...
So he can tie it to yet another round of tax hikes?
Is it your impression he's going to raise the retirement age? Would you guess that means testing is in order?
And you are correct, nobody wants their benefits cut.
Unfortunately nobody wants to pay taxes either.
Unless of course the idea is to only tax those other guys.
Plenty of people like that idea.
WSS
Could it be because he wants a long-term deal, the grand bargain, because he thinks long-term debt is important and doesn't want to continue this cycle of going from one politically manufactured crisis to another, so he's willing to put SS benefit cuts on the table in order to achieve that goal?
Could it be because he wants a long-term deal, the grand bargain, because he thinks long-term debt is important and doesn't want to continue this cycle of going from one politically manufactured crisis to another, so he's willing to put SS benefit cuts on the table in order to achieve that goal?
Anything is possible.
That reason would seem to me to be a near complete about face though .
So again raising the retirement age and means testing.
Yes? No?
But if those things are the right thing to do why not just go for them independent of another tax hike?
WSS
-
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?
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?
+1^ thanks for the breath of fresh air.....
-
Could it be because he wants a long-term deal, the grand bargain, because he thinks long-term debt is important and doesn't want to continue this cycle of going from one politically manufactured crisis to another, so he's willing to put SS benefit cuts on the table in order to achieve that goal?
Anything is possible.
That reason would seem to me to be a near complete about face though .
So again raising the retirement age and means testing.
Yes? No?
But if those things are the right thing to do why not just go for them independent of another tax hike?
WSS
Anything is possible.
That reason would seem to me to be a near complete about face though .
So again raising the retirement age and means testing.
Yes? No?
But if those things are the right thing to do why not just go for them independent of another tax bike?
WSS
It's not an about face at all. I think you just don't have a good grasp of what the White House wants.
And I have no idea if he'd propose those things as well, but my guess is they'd do means testing before raising the retirement age because they're aware that the lifespan for lower class workers hasn't really gone up all that much.
As for the last part, well, he kind of just did. But the real answer is that it'd be a lousy negotiating ploy to hand over what's going to backfire on you politically without achieving any of your other goals in return. The other play, I'm presuming, is to show that the White House is open to dealing if the Republicans would come to the table. Republicans have a way of making themselves look intransigent, and they'll probably fall right into that trap. Boehner, for one, really can't go anywhere without losing his post. And the old guard in the Senate (McCain, Graham, Corker, etc.) is already battling the new crowd (Paul, Cruz, etc.). I suspect the White house think they're ripe for the cracking, and they are. They've got their eyes on regaining control of the House in 2014, which probably isn't likely, but you never know. The Republicans are in a bit of a tailspin lately. You'll notice the old guard in the Senate is trying to course correct. That's why they keep publicly lecturing Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who want more of the old strategy. That appeals to the base, who want to see someone stand up and shove it in the president's nose, and do the old "commies!" and "illegals!" routine, but that's not where the bulk of the country is.
-
The idea that our gov has "no choice" but to raise taxes to save SS, means that
taxes is the solution to overspending and dependency and fraud where it happens, across the board.
Meanwhile, I have a question:
I know that teens in hs, who are special eduction students, get social security.
While they are in high school. For life. Their checks are about 500-600 a month.
Kids go out of their way to be classified special education for that reason, often,
when they are no such thing. It's a free ride. That's just a "small" city in Ohio.
Think how many try that, and how many special education students there are in just
on whole state. All their parents have to do, is have their child/children fill out the paperwork.
One of the jobs a school psychologist has, is to eval students and only let the legitimately learning disabled
get the special education classification. It isn't uncommon to transfer to another school system to
have another chance to be classified as such. They just have to get a different psychologist and hope
for the best. Interesting how their grades go up after that ss starts coming in for some students....
Then, as adults, out of school, they can go on welfare, too. And all they have to do, for life,
is just keep getting it all. And, the reason they demand a no seeking work/work program with welfare,
is partly, because they would have their ss cut back a bit if they made more than 14,000 whatever it is a year.
question: How many ways can so many use a program, until it fails?
It's a great thing for students who really are very special ed. But it's a widespread lifestyle choice in just one district,
add all the districts up, all the states up, all the welfare by those who are -using- the system when they don't have to...
including having children for the programs to help them....who have more children because it's more money...
and this is just one example of dependency gone wild. Helping those who need help is the hallmark
of a great people.
But enabling an entire subculture of millions of willful, locked in dependents, when some could work, but choose to
use the system instead as a way of life?
And I'm not talking about those who need the help. I'm talking about a huge percentage of uses and abusers.
where does it all end? How much more in taxes can most folks pay and not fail to meet their own bills?
The overall numbers never include the numbers of fraud, and abuse. it's a subculture of dependency as a chosen lifestyle -
and it's gotten out of control.
Raising taxes only spirals the enabling more. When does the "more revenue" crap end in lib circles?
-
The idea that our gov has "no choice" but to raise taxes to save SS, means that
taxes is the solution to overspending and dependency and fraud where it happens, across the board.
Meanwhile, I have a question:
I know that teens in hs, who are special eduction students, get social security.
While they are in high school. For life. Their checks are about 500-600 a month.
Kids go out of their way to be classified special education for that reason, often,
when they are no such thing. It's a free ride. That's just a "small" city in Ohio.
Think how many try that, and how many special education students there are in just
on whole state. All their parents have to do, is have their child/children fill out the paperwork.
One of the jobs a school psychologist has, is to eval students and only let the legitimately learning disabled
get the special education classification. It isn't uncommon to transfer to another school system to
have another chance to be classified as such. They just have to get a different psychologist and hope
for the best. Interesting how their grades go up after that ss starts coming in for some students....
Then, as adults, out of school, they can go on welfare, too. And all they have to do, for life,
is just keep getting it all. And, the reason they demand a no seeking work/work program with welfare,
is partly, because they would have their ss cut back a bit if they made more than 14,000 whatever it is a year.
question: How many ways can so many use a program, until it fails?
It's a great thing for students who really are very special ed. But it's a widespread lifestyle choice in just one district,
add all the districts up, all the states up, all the welfare by those who are -using- the system when they don't have to...
including having children for the programs to help them....who have more children because it's more money...
and this is just one example of dependency gone wild. Helping those who need help is the hallmark
of a great people.
But enabling an entire subculture of millions of willful, locked in dependents, when some could work, but choose to
use the system instead as a way of life?
And I'm not talking about those who need the help. I'm talking about a huge percentage of uses and abusers.
where does it all end? How much more in taxes can most folks pay and not fail to meet their own bills?
The overall numbers never include the numbers of fraud, and abuse. it's a subculture of dependency as a chosen lifestyle -
and it's gotten out of control.
Raising taxes only spirals the enabling more. When does the "more revenue" crap end in lib circles?
The idea that our gov has "no choice" but to raise taxes to save SS, means that
taxes is the solution to overspending and dependency and fraud where it happens, across the board.
Meanwhile, I have a question:
I know that teens in hs, who are special eduction students, get social security.
While they are in high school. For life. Their checks are about 500-600 a month.
Kids go out of their way to be classified special education for that reason, often,
when they are no such thing. It's a free ride. That's just a "small" city in Ohio.
Think how many try that, and how many special education students there are in just
on whole state. All their parents have to do, is have their child/children fill out the paperwork.
One of the jobs a school psychologist has, is to eval students and only let the legitimately learning disabled
get the special education classification. It isn't uncommon to transfer to another school system to
have another chance to be classified as such. They just have to get a different psychologist and hope
for the best. Interesting how their grades go up after that ss starts coming in for some students....
Then, as adults, out of school, they can go on welfare, too. And all they have to do, for life,
is just keep getting it all. And, the reason they demand a no seeking work/work program with welfare,
is partly, because they would have their ss cut back a bit if they made more than 14,000 whatever it is a year.
question: How many ways can so many use a program, until it fails?
It's a great thing for students who really are very special ed. But it's a widespread lifestyle choice in just one district,
add all the districts up, all the states up, all the welfare by those who are -using- the system when they don't have to...
including having children for the programs to help them....who have more children because it's more money...
and this is just one example of dependency gone wild. Helping those who need help is the hallmark
of a great people.
But enabling an entire subculture of millions of willful, locked in dependents, when some could work, but choose to
use the system instead as a way of life?
And I'm not talking about those who need the help. I'm talking about a huge percentage of uses and abusers.
where does it all end? How much more in taxes can most folks pay and not fail to meet their own bills?
The overall numbers never include the numbers of fraud, and abuse. it's a subculture of dependency as a chosen lifestyle -
and it's gotten out of control.
Raising taxes only spirals the enabling more. When does the "more revenue" crap end in lib circles?
good points
and as the libs would have it....theres never enough tax revenue!
-
Steve, here's the graph on life expectancy. It's not a well known fact, but this is why raising the retirement age isn't such a good idea. It basically ends up that lower class workers, blue collar workers, would end up subsidizing the retirement of well off workers. Overall life expectancy has gone up, but not for lower income workers who often do more physically demanding work than the people at the firm.
Also, as you'll see from the chart, it's not going to get you a whole lot of money.
-
You really should show the graph beginning in the 19 forties.
Wss
-
The last change was in 1983, which switched it to 67, so it includes that.
-
Ha. Of course, of course, ever since Obama put out this "chained CPI" proposal - which is what the Republicans had been for, and had proposed themselves, and had said would be the start of a real discussion if the President would only agree to it - lots of people have been wondering how long it was going to be before the Republicans starting attacking Obama for this shocking cut to the benefits for our seniors! We figured they'd break it out in the 2014 campaigns for sure, just like Romney and Ryan broke out the $716 billion in Medicare cuts that Ryan himself had in his own budget plans before - and now after - the 2012 election. Well, turns out they aren't even waiting for the election!
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) — who also happens to be chairman of the House GOP’s re-election committee — just showed how it’s done, saying Obama’s budget “lays out a shocking attack on seniors.”
“I’ll tell you when you’re going after seniors the way he’s already done on Obamacare, taken $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare and now coming back at seniors again, I think you’re crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine certainly and around the country,” he said on CNN Wednesday afternoon.
Classic.
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