• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden has poor history on supporting Social Security Insurance = 40 years of bad history

Razoo

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
24,476
Reaction score
7,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Beware Of Biden History Regarding Deficit Spending

Surely he will have a change of heart and leave his austerity thoughts in a trash can. Austerity pulls money from the economy which is simply reckless indeed. Voters cannot become complacent.

Joe Biden has always been a deficit hawk, including on Social Security.

It’s exceedingly unlikely that a Democratic Congress would ever try to slash Social Security or Medicare. One important question, however, is what will happen if President Biden comes face-to-face with a Republican Congress—or even just a GOP-held House or Senate—that tries to force his hand on spending cuts.

(Mitch McConnell has essentially said he will wait until a Democrat is in office to try to slash entitlements, because it’s too unpopular for the GOP to do on its own.)

We know what transpired during the Obama administration: The White House tried to compromise. It agreed that the deficit was a clear and present danger—despite the fact that the economy was still depressed after the recession—and attempted to negotiate a grand bargain of spending cuts and tax increases.

Biden himself led discussions with a bipartisan group on behalf of the administration, and appeared ready to give up trillions in budget reductions, though they wouldn’t have targeted the major entitlements. As late as 2014, Obama caved to Republican requests and included a proposal to slow down the growth of Social Security benefits in his annual budget (he later dropped the idea in the face of liberal pushback).

Would a Biden administration travel down the same road, and try to compromise? Compromise, after all, is what Biden is running on.

Ideally, a Democratic president in 2021 would not only oppose budget cuts today, but would jettison most of Washington’s obsession with so-called fiscal discipline. The national debt is, truly, among the least of our problems right now. We may need to fully pay for ongoing expenses like a healthcare expansion. But there are plenty of urgent priorities with big, one-time price tags—infrastructure, a transition to green energy—that could be deficit financed without causing any significant economic issues. Certainly, the rock bottom interest rates on U.S. treasury debt suggest we have plenty of room to borrow.

It unfortunately might be too much to ask for that kind of leader. But at the very least, the next person in the Oval Office should be able to stand up to the debt scolds on the big issues, like entitlements or austerity. If they can’t, the sick and elderly will suffer, the economy will suffer, and their presidency will suffer.

One tragedy of the Obama administration was how, following the failure of the grand bargain, the GOP still steamrolled it into passing major spending cuts that helped turn the economic recovery into a crawl, and may well have contributed to a Trump win in the end.

Perhaps Biden learned a lesson from that experience, and would resist repeating it. But our ex-VP has talked extensively about his desire to return to an era of bipartisan cooperation. And whether we’re talking about Social Security or another major program, the budget is one area in which those instincts are truly scary.
 
Last edited:
I say Biden will change his attitudes under the current circumstances.

We can hope that Harris will keep Biden on the moderate track because it is best for economic growth which creates employment.

What impact would the conversion to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts. Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office.

Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years. This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion.

Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the private accounts replaced the current system?
Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor. While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension.

When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income. In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things. In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income. If the move to private accounts reduces elders’ spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality—and increased inequality hinders economic growth. For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced. Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme. The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression. And the rapid increase in inequality under the Reagan and two Bush administrations = “Great Recession.
 
Last edited:
Biden, I believe, will listen to Americans. Biden will most certainly surround himself with experienced professionals. Biden isn't stupid and he's been in politics a long time. Right now that is exactly what we need, someone who knows and understands how government works. Harris is also a seasoned very intelligent professional. As a result, I believe Biden and Harris are much more likely to listen to the People and wise counsel. Unlike the authoritarian neophyte who plays golf, watches TV most of the day, and rarely listens to briefings Biden and Harris will not be afraid of governing the People's will.
 
I say Biden will change his attitudes under the current circumstances.

We can hope that Harris will keep Biden on the moderate track because it is best for economic growth which creates employment.

What impact would the conversion to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts. Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office.

Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years. This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion.

Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the private accounts replaced the current system?
Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor. While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension.

When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income. In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things. In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income. If the move to private accounts reduces elders’ spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality—and increased inequality hinders economic growth. For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced. Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme. The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression. And the rapid increase in inequality under the Reagan and two Bush administrations = “Great Recession.

Yes Joe might come around ...... he is capable.
 
Biden is Fighting to Protect and Expand Social Security; Donald Trump is Plotting to Defund It

Below is a statement from Jon “Bowzer” Bauman, President of Social Security Works PAC, endorsing Joe Biden for President:
“There has never been an election more consequential for Social Security than this one. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrats are committed to protecting and expanding this vital program.

But if Donald Trump stays in power, he has*vowed to terminate*Social Security’s funding. Make no mistake: under current law, that means that in just a few years, Social Security would be no more.

Social Security is on the ballot, and there’s only one choice for anyone who cares about protecting and expanding our earned benefits. Social Security Works PAC is proud to endorse Joe Biden for President.”

Social Security Works PAC Endorses Joe Biden for President


Why Social Security Insurance?

Social Security Insurance Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions About Our Social Security System

It’s more important than words can explain. WE don't need Social Security Insurance going into a high risk venture such as Wall Street.

Social Security Insurance goes back into the economy without fail, keeps food on the table and keeps Medicare Insurance paid for every month without fail

Separating Fact From Fiction
Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense[/QUOTE]
 
Things are looking up .....
 
Back
Top Bottom