Social Security Cuts
-
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.
-
In late December, a Boehner aide told Bloomberg News that the Speaker wanted Chained CPI more than other entitlement cuts, such as raising the Medicare eligibility age, as the two were negotiation over a possible cuts-for-revenues swap to avert the fiscal cliff.
And in late November, Mitch McConnell explicitly told the Wall Street Journal that if Obama offered entitlement changes such as Chained CPI and Medicare means testing, Republicans would consider new revenue. He actually said this: “those are the kinds of things that would get Republicans interested in new revenue.”
-
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."
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."
Come into the grey area- the water's fine.
No need to get rid of the "programs for zeros". Trimming some fat would be nice.
"Go right ahead" ok, "here it goes":
The US spent $1.03 trillion on welfare in 2011 or 6% of the GDP since you happen to be "wowed" by percentages.
Quote:
[According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.]*
How about reducing that figure back to 2008 levels by putting the thinking caps on? There's your $90 billion solution plus an additional $100 billion in "fun money".
Any more brain busters?
*link: ( I'm on my phone)
-
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."
Come into the grey area- the water's fine.
No need to get rid of the "programs for zeros". Trimming some fat would be nice.
"Go right ahead" ok, "here it goes":
The US spent $1.03 trillion on welfare in 2011 or 6% of the GDP since you happen to be "wowed" by percentages.
Quote:
[According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.]*
How about reducing that figure back to 2008 levels by putting the thinking caps on? There's your $90 billion solution plus an additional $100 billion in "fun money".
Any more brain busters?
*link: ( I'm on my phone)
Come into the grey area- the water's fine.
No need to get rid of the "programs for zeros". Trimming some fat would be nice.
"Go right ahead" ok, "here it goes":
The US spent $1.03 trillion on welfare in 2011 or 6% of the GDP since you happen to be "wowed" by percentages.
Quote:
[According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.]*
How about reducing that figure back to 2008 levels by putting the thinking caps on? There's your $90 billion solution plus an additional $100 billion in "fun money".
Any more brain busters?
*link: ( I'm on my phone)
Leg, are you serious? Your proposal is to take all federal welfare spending, which includes things like Medicaid, and tell everyone you have to get by with the money we spent on those programs in 2008? And that's how you want to save Social Security?
Again, I apologize for suggesting that you're not living in the real world, because I have to suggest it again.
-
Also, do you want to go into why most of those programs increased between 2008 and 2011, and why The Daily Caller is picking those years in order to get their splash headline?
Something happened around 2008. Hmm. It'll come to me.
-
Come into the grey area- the water's fine.
No need to get rid of the "programs for zeros". Trimming some fat would be nice.
"Go right ahead" ok, "here it goes":
The US spent $1.03 trillion on welfare in 2011 or 6% of the GDP since you happen to be "wowed" by percentages.
Quote:
[According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.]*
How about reducing that figure back to 2008 levels by putting the thinking caps on? There's your $90 billion solution plus an additional $100 billion in "fun money".
Any more brain busters?
*link: ( I'm on my phone)
Leg, are you serious? Your proposal is to take all federal welfare spending, which includes things like Medicaid, and tell everyone you have to get by with the money we spent on those programs in 2008? And that's how you want to save Social Security?
Again, I apologize for suggesting that you're not living in the real world, because I have to suggest it again.
Leg, are you serious? Your proposal is to take all federal welfare spending, which includes things like Medicaid, and tell everyone you have to get by with the money we spent on those programs in 2008? And that's how you want to save Social Security?
Again, I apologize for suggesting that you're not living in the real world, because I have to suggest it again.
2008 was 5 years ago. Not 55. You're reacting like I've sent us back to the 30s and the Great Depression. This is hilarious. So NOW the $90bil in cuts are a problem? its ok to cut 90 bil from earners, but not non-earners? Please explain that logic to me.
Even if we didn't revert all the way to 2008 levels (a $190 billion reduction) but only trim $90 bil from that "increase" where is the foul when that's what we're asking to deplete from the SS disbursements.
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