Social Security Cuts
-
Legacy you know exactly why that is.
The problem is not that we want more and don't want to pay taxes, it's that the majority of less productive citizens want more and demands someone else pay the taxes.
That's the strategy.
And it's humorous that heck bitches about hidebound Republicans and then posts: Kevin Drum.
Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice.
But that doesn't sell votes....
WSS
-
And that's the trouble. Obamao will spend whatever more taxes we pay. He'll spend it on anything
that endears him and the national dems to their leftist base.
-
Legacy you know exactly why that is.
The problem is not that we want more and don't want to pay taxes, it's that the majority of less productive citizens want more and demands someone else pay the taxes.
That's the strategy.
And it's humorous that heck bitches about hidebound Republicans and then posts: Kevin Drum.
Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice.
But that doesn't sell votes....
WSS
Legacy you know exactly why that is.
The problem is not that we want more and don't want to pay taxes, it's that the majority of less productive citizens want more and demands someone else pay the taxes.
That's the strategy.
And it's humorous that heck bitches about hidebound Republicans and then posts: Kevin Drum.
Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice.
But that doesn't sell votes....
WSS
This is a classic of the Browns Board genre. It really is. This is a thread about making tough choices on Social Security, and about how Americans almost always avoid the tough choices and instead demand to have someone else's benefits cut, but not theirs. We used one of the most often recommended remedies, chained CPI (as Krauthammer said yesterday, if we can't even agree to do chained CPI, something that just about every commission on entitlement reform has recommended, we're hopeless), the one the president just put on the table publicly, as a starting point. I put up a chart from the CPO that scores all of available policy choices we have and how effective they are at cutting benefits or raising revenue. I asked which ones you guys would prefer, since you're all on the page that the deficit is growing too large and entitlements need to be cut. And not one of you gave a real answer.
Leg then demanded that benefits stay at their current level, and that spending on "programs for zeros" be cut instead. I asked him to explain, and he created a scenario that is not practical, possible, or doable. We went back and forth on why that is, how SS is separate from the regular budget, and then Leg said I wouldn't "explain the logic behind why it's ok to cut workers benefits, but not non-workers."
Eventually seeing that his idea really isn't a solution that exists in the real world, Leg then posted a bunch stories from his personal experience dealing with poor people, and all the bad decisions they make.
Then I posted a quote from Kevin Drum that seemed particularly appropriate because it fit the thread perfect: most people who are loudest about reducing the deficit and the debt are not serious about doing it, but instead are really talking about cutting programs for poor people. Because we just watched exactly that in this thread. After years of listening to everyone on the board screech about spending and deficits and debt ...not one of you chimed in with an actual proposal to fix Social Security. But we did get lots of idea about how to cut money for poor people!
Yep, Drum was sure wrong about that!
And then, to top it off, Steve then brought it home with yet another post steering it back to his old saw/wheelhouse: lazy people vote for more benefits, and the Democrats' strategy is to give it to them.
And scene.
-
And Steve, Kevin Drum isn't even acceptable to you? One of the most respected liberal commentators on the right, known for his fairness and use of charts, graphs, and evidence? He's "hidebound"? Either you know nothing of his work, or you simply don't accept that liberal political/economic opinions can or should exist. Or maybe, just maybe, you might want to think about how often you break out your "hidebound/acolyte" smear.
-
Steve, you talked about shared sacrifice. Well, what does that look like for you in terms of Social Security reform?
-
Oh cripe we just heard Ed Schultz and Bernie Sanders spout the same thing.
" We don't care if it would help or not we don't care whether or not it's the right thing to do. We must stand firm as Democrats!"
Oh by the way yes you're exactly right that is the Democrats strategy. It works.
WSS
-
That's what Leg said too - we shouldn't cut benefits. That's what lots of people are saying.
But first of all, no one cares what Ed Schultz says. And Bernie Sanders didn't say what you said he said. Bernie Sanders isn't even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders thinks we shouldn't cut benefits.
Try and stick to the topic. I already know your perverted idea of Democratic politics. What's shared sacrifice look like to you in terms of Social Security?
-
Plus you really have noticed the president's campaign for the last five years, haven't you?
Please don't tell me you haven't understood that it's almost 75 percent tax the rich tax the rich tax the rich.
I don't have access to Lexis Nexis, I'm sure everything works that well now, but I'd like to see how many hits for fair share or doing their part comes up.
WSS
-
-
Yes that is what leg said. So what? What I say is that I'm happy to give up a little bit if everybody's on the same page.
So you're telling me I mis understood Bernie Sanders and he's all for it?
Wss
-
What do you think shared sacrifice means in terms of Social Security reform?
"Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice."
Lay it out.
-
What do you think shared sacrifice means in terms of Social Security reform?
"Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice."
Lay it out.
What do you think shared sacrifice means in terms of Social Security reform?
"Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice."
I'll pretend I'm back in college and make up at an answer I know I will please the professor.
Why sharedd sacrifice, sir, is where the most fortunate among us are happy to give a little bit more to make society, you know, more equal and stuff right?
WSS
-
Stay on target, stay on target...
Seriously, what would be the "across the board shared sacrifice" that would please you? Because the Chained CPI is across the board sacrifice that affects everyone equally in terms of dollars, but whose impact is more weighted to the lower income people who depend on SS income more than wealthier people do, wouldn't you agree? But Chained CPI doesn't get us all of the way there anyway.
So tell me what would be the "shared sacrifice plan" beyond that?
-
So why not just be honest and call it welfare and be done with it?
Seriously rich guys you still have to pay but you aren't getting a return. Poor guys you don't have to pay but you are getting a return.
Sort of takes the "well its my money" response out of the game doesn't it?
Plus you start your longevity chart in the 80's? Yeah I'm sure nothing changed between 1940 and 1983...
WSS
-
How far are you going to go to avoid the question? You're just assuming stuff. I haven't mentioned a thing about wanting to strip the benefits of the wealthy. I just noted that means testing is one of the options, and often that doesn't mean stripping their benefits. It means reducing them.
What do you mean by "across the board shared sacrifice"? You said you'd be for tax increases and benefit reductions if it included across the board shared sacrifice. Well, what would you include?
-
So why not just be honest and call it welfare and be done with it?
Seriously rich guys you still have to pay but you aren't getting a return. Poor guys you don't have to pay but you are getting a return.
Sort of takes the "well its my money" response out of the game doesn't it?
Plus you start your longevity chart in the 80's? Yeah I'm sure nothing changed between 1940 and 1983...
WSS
So why not just be honest and call it welfare and be done with it?
Seriously rich guys you still have to pay but you aren't getting a return. Poor guys you don't have to pay but you are getting a return.
WSS
And what is this all about? Rich people pay into SS, but poor people don't? What world is this?
-
You keep barking at me like I don't know SS is a different part of the budget. I've already explained that I'm well aware of this and you shuck & jive from answering my question. I reiterate that the federal govt is notorious for paying for left pocket expenditures from the right pocket and you continue to respond like i'm saying "because Elvis told me so."
*You* bring up Medicaid, and I give examples (based on actual scientific research -not anecdotal) where cuts in Medicaid could be made. Even though there might be shedding if tears from the "constituents".
So one final time: why is cutting from welfare so god damned evil but cutting from SS totally ok?
-
It's not. I don't know why you think I'm making that argument. I'm making the argument that your plan is pulled out of your ass and not workable, because it is.
I'm suggesting that coming up with a number in your head with which to cut the entirety of federal welfare spending, in this case "back to 2008 levels", is not a plan to keep Social Security benefits at their current levels. And your actual scientific research on cutting Medicaid was where? I just saw your professional frustrations with the poor patients you see in your dentist's office.
And there are few things funnier on this board than the idiotic belief that the base of the Democratic Party is shiftless poor people. Yes, guys. 65 million Americans cast their vote for Obama, and pretty much all of them were the Obamaphone lady. You've really got your finger on the pulse of the nation. It's like if I kept insisting that the base of the Republican Party was made up of snakehandlers and faith healers.
-
How far are you going to go to avoid the question? You're just assuming stuff. I haven't mentioned a thing about wanting to strip the benefits of the wealthy. I just noted that means testing is one of the options, and often that doesn't mean stripping their benefits. It means reducing them.
What do you mean by "across the board shared sacrifice"? You said you'd be for tax increases and benefit reductions if it included across the board shared sacrifice. Well, what would you include?
How far are you going to go to avoid the question? You're just assuming stuff. I haven't mentioned a thing about wanting to strip the benefits of the wealthy. I just noted that means testing is one of the options, and often that doesn't mean stripping their benefits. It means reducing them.
What do you mean by "across the board shared sacrifice"? You said you'd be for tax increases and benefit reductions if it included across the board shared sacrifice. Well, what would you include?
So you want to bicker over the term stripping and reducing ,which is actually stripping? Come on.
You yourself said that this plant of the Presidents wasn't something you opposed automatically.
Then you suggested the president proposed it because it's the right thing to do.
Then you went on a tirade about splitting the Republicans or something blah blah blah.
And then you said means tested and raising the retirement age; those three tactics would fix things remember?
But now your balk because Kevin Ed and Bernie don't like it.
But rather than being honest you ask a stupid question.
"Well Steve, what's your detailed economic plan and I want specific numbers!"
Tell you what since I know yours let's just ....
WSS
-
Dude, are you serious? Just stop. I'm posting all sorts of stuff. That doesn't mean I'm endorsing it. I'm posting opinions, options, charts. Giving different sides. The Drum stuff was to show you that, yes, the president's base doesn't like it. You posted about Ed Schultz and Bernie Sanders for the same reason. Does that mean you endorse what they say? I posted past Republican quotes about supporting Chained CPI. I posted a Krauthammer quote to show what he thinks. It's called "a discussion."
Now answer the question. What do you want to do to make the sacrifice shared?
Try discussing the issue and not me so this doesn't dissolve into the same old boring shit. Stay on target.
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