GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security

[SenorXm/Sirius]

It is fascinating how many Middle Class Conservatives get their opinions and politics from these millionaire Con talking heads on the radio and TV. Millionaires who don't care about SS, or Middle Class services like Heath Insurance, and public schools and police protection.

The millionaire talking heads are rich, they don't need SS or public schools or HI. So they sit there daily preaching that all these services should be torn down, and their Conservative lemming listeners believe every word they say even though believing them means these Con Middle Class people are cutting their own throats.

Sad.

 

[poweRob]

Success my ass. It's ticking debt bomb plagued by unfunded liabilities, fraud and waste.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...1/gIQAp1Wl9H_blog.html?utm_term=.ce2feb6a8636

I hope you didn't expect that link to help prove your case. Because it was a glowing artlcle on how SS never added to the US debt. In fact, it's large surpluses up to recently has had it being a creditor to the nation's debt.

So yes, thanks for helping prove that SS is a government success story even more than I did.

 

[Renae]

I hope you didn't expect that link to help prove your case. Because it was a glowing artlcle on how SS never added to the US debt. In fact, it's large surpluses up to recently has had it being a creditor to the nation's debt.

So yes, thanks for helping prove that SS is a government success story even more than I did.

Someone didnt read the article. That would be you.

 

[bluesmoke]

Someone didnt read the article. That would be you.

I read the article you referenced in support of your post. Point out where in the article are mentioned the "...fraud and waste." you claim? The "unfunded liabilities" you post that the article argues as being a major driver of debt, they do not conclude as actually being a major driver of debt. No other government agency has funded itself, except SS. Typically, most agencies outlay more than the year before. That is an unfunded liability. The fact is, by definition, the entire US government is an unfunded liability. Now that the greater numbers of boomers are retiring, unsupported by enough numbers of younger workers, who are also getting paid 83 cents in value on the dollar, it's all of a sudden "But what have you done for me lately?" So, where is the fraud and waste in SS you speak of? We add to the debt every year. We have "unfunded liabilities" every year. Except for SS this coming year. Do you believe this legislation will take food off the table from people that worked during a lifetime, paying their dues?

 

[Absentglare]

I like watching the republicans "wait; less government spending means i get less stuff?"

Like the gears are finally turning.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

My idea is a bit less involved.

I have to be a bit hard. The part that is missing is the investment of time in research. You may have a statement on how it should have been set-up, but it was converted into a pay as you go system in the 1940s. You have to solve the problem you have not one that doesn't exist.

The fact is the Ponzi scheme that is SS can no longer stand on it's legs. the number of people paying in has shrunk to low to support itself compared to the people it is paying out.
that is the problem with most Ponzi scheme's it is also why they are illegal.

If you were to run an investment business like SS you would be arrested and thrown in jail.

So why the government gets away with it is beyond me.

Cliche. Google MFGlobal.

The way it should have been set would be similar to an IRA or money market account or something like that. The money that is taken out is put in an account for you.
The government pays a simple interest rate on those accounts and every 5 years instead of an interest payment it does a 1 time deposit of say 2000 dollars.

also if you want you can take up to 1/4 of your account and invest it in another vehicle such as a mutual fund or something like that.

The fact is the way SS is setup right now it will not last something has to be done to change how it functions. had it been setup correctly to begin with then we wouldn't have this problem.

It was set-up to be actuarially sound. Congress added benefits and cuts payroll taxes. You ought to look back at Congressional testimony from 1944 because they had this same discussion.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Success my ass. It's ticking debt bomb plagued by unfunded liabilities, fraud and waste.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...1/gIQAp1Wl9H_blog.html?utm_term=.ce2feb6a8636

The article doesn't mention fraud or waste. Unfunded liabilities are money that by law will not be spent. Debt is money that is already spent.

The article is not well researched. Social Security has received about 600 billion in debt creating subsidies, primarily revenue collected on the taxation of Social Security benefits. SS is not 100% funded by the payroll tax. It collects about $30 billion 2016 in GF subsidies.

 

[ludin]

I have to be a bit hard. The part that is missing is the investment of time in research. You may have a statement on how it should have been set-up, but it was converted into a pay as you go system in the 1940s. You have to solve the problem you have not one that doesn't exist.



Cliche. Google MFGlobal.



It was set-up to be actuarially sound. Congress added benefits and cuts payroll taxes. You ought to look back at Congressional testimony from 1944 because they had this same discussion.

Ponzi schemes are never sound that is why they are illegal.
if you were to try and run and investment plan like SS you would be thrown in jail.

You soon run out of new investors and the amount of money that you owe older investors gets to big.
that is the exact issue that SS is facing.

if it was setup to be sound it wouldn't be going broke would it.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I hope you didn't expect that link to help prove your case. Because it was a glowing artlcle on how SS never added to the US debt. In fact, it's large surpluses up to recently has had it being a creditor to the nation's debt.

So yes, thanks for helping prove that SS is a government success story even more than I did.

The article is poorly researched. Social Security receives modest GF subsidies, mainly in the form of the revenue from the taxation of benefits. It received a 250 billion dollar subsidy for the payroll tax holiday. It is about $600 billion over the life time of the system.

If you are interested in the details, here is an article that I published on the question. The real question is which deficit are you talking about? I am supposed to have an article coming out in the Kansas City Start this week answering the question about the debt.

http://www.fedsmith.com/2014/09/21/does-social-security-impact-the-federal-deficit/

 

[mbig]

It is fascinating how many Middle Class Conservatives get their opinions and politics from these millionaire Con talking heads on the radio and TV. Millionaires who don't care about SS, or Middle Class services like Heath Insurance, and public schools and police protection.
The millionaire talking heads are rich, they don't need SS or public schools or HI. So they sit there daily preaching that all these services should be torn down, and their Conservative lemming listeners believe every word they say even though believing them means these Con Middle Class people are cutting their own throats.
Sad.

Nicely pointed.
We see this all the time. 20-40 something conservative posters who would NOT be able to live from 65-90 on their savings.
Few could.
(my guess, into the 7 digits of savings would be needed without Govt programs)
As of 4 years ago, 40% of Americans had zero or negative Net worth. (or under $1000)
I imagine it's down to 30% or since the recovery.

Anyone think think they could afford the 'Free Market' Medical Insurance rate for a policy of 65+ers?
Anyone want to guess what the fair Actuarial + Profit monthly rate is? $2000 a month? $3000? EACH?
Then there's housing, that 1/3+ of Americans also don't own.
Without SS and Medicare this is Trailer Park (and 20x the homeless) America. (Thx FDR)

This country is capitalist, but is great because of it's large Middle Class. A middle Class in good part engineered in the 20th C by PROgressive Income taxes. Starting with (THX T-R too) taking down and Taxing only the top 1%: Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, etc.
Thereafter, and until about the Reign/Rain of Reagan, the Top Income Tax Bracket was app 50%-91%.
But of course that wasn't "fair."
What counts, however, is Not what's fair, it's what's Possible/Practical.

No matter, this board is filled with guys who just like being 'Rugged individualist' conservative. It just feels good on all the other fronts/positions too. But most of these Red State numb nuts would be (or ARE) dirt broke and homeless in their senior years without Govt subsidized lives.

 

[natsb]

a massive flaw exists. there is a very low cap on income subject to social security premiums. and that - what a shock - is to the benefit of the wealthy

$118,500 is the current cap. someone earning $118,500 at 12.4% (combined amounts paid by employer and employee) the wage earner's annual contribution to the social security treasury is $14,694

let's compare that to what cam newton would pay on $20,000,000 income for 2016 ($13MM base and $7MM signing bonus)

and it turns out those two wage earners pay exactly the same amount into the social security fund, $14,694

cam newton will pay 0.07347% of his 2016 wages toward his social security contribution

$2,480,000 would be the amount he would pay if he was obligated to contribute at the same rate as you and me

cam newton saved $2,465,306 because of that cap

who here thinks cam newton cannot afford to pay the same rate as you and me?

then why the hell doesn't he have to?

ditto for every other fat cat

I am seeing a massive flaw with your reasoning. The reason for the cap is to create a maximum payout. If you remove the cap, you remove the limit to how much a person can receive a year. That is why removing the cap is revenue neutral, and will not result is a rescued SS system.

On a side note... Why are you or I entitled to Cam's money? Is this perhaps a little class envy?

 

[Renae]

I read the article you referenced in support of your post. Point out where in the article are mentioned the "...fraud and waste." you claim? The "unfunded liabilities" you post that the article argues as being a major driver of debt, they do not conclude as actually being a major driver of debt. No other government agency has funded itself, except SS. Typically, most agencies outlay more than the year before. That is an unfunded liability. The fact is, by definition, the entire US government is an unfunded liability. Now that the greater numbers of boomers are retiring, unsupported by enough numbers of younger workers, who are also getting paid 83 cents in value on the dollar, it's all of a sudden "But what have you done for me lately?" So, where is the fraud and waste in SS you speak of? We add to the debt every year. We have "unfunded liabilities" every year. Except for SS this coming year. Do you believe this legislation will take food off the table from people that worked during a lifetime, paying their dues?

I'm sorry, the article didn't. I added that as pointing out further problems I have with SS. Since you are going to waste our time with that I'll leave you with this... the article points out the fundamentally unsound financial ground of SS. Have a nice day.

 

[justabubba]

I am seeing a massive flaw with your reasoning. The reason for the cap is to create a maximum payout. If you remove the cap, you remove the limit to how much a person can receive a year. That is why removing the cap is revenue neutral, and will not result is a rescued SS system.

On a side note... Why are you or I entitled to Cam's money? Is this perhaps a little class envy?

why is cam provded a special dispensarion that eliminates the need to pay social security contributions at the same rate of most other Amercians? wealth privilege is all i can see. what is your reason for this this to be found acceptable?

 

[bluesmoke]

I'm sorry, the article didn't. I added that as pointing out further problems I have with SS. Since you are going to waste our time with that I'll leave you with this... the article points out the fundamentally unsound financial ground of SS. Have a nice day.

You're not sorry. The further problems you pointed out, fraud and waste, you showed no evidence to support such a claim. None. This is a political debate forum. Not a waste of time in that we are pursuing the facts of this matter. That you do not do so, you are the one wasting “our” time. SS is on unsound financial ground as us all else is supported by taxing our society. The thing is, the most important in our society is us. Hence the importance of SS, which takes care of all people, and healthcare and human services that takes care of all people. So, what facts do you have to contribute to this debate regarding the fraud and waste you say there are in SS? That’s debate. Don’t waste our time tossing lady fingers at us as grenades, then runaway casting sarcasm over your shoulder as you retreat.

 

[poweRob]

Someone didnt read the article. That would be you.

lol... If you don't think I read it, then why don't you just cite the portion you are referring to then? Good 'ol copy and paste.

 

[poweRob]

The article is poorly researched. Social Security receives modest GF subsidies, mainly in the form of the revenue from the taxation of benefits. It received a 250 billion dollar subsidy for the payroll tax holiday. It is about $600 billion over the life time of the system.

If you are interested in the details, here is an article that I published on the question. The real question is which deficit are you talking about? I am supposed to have an article coming out in the Kansas City Start this week answering the question about the debt.

http://www.fedsmith.com/2014/09/21/does-social-security-impact-the-federal-deficit/

So what I think you are saying is since Reagan started taxing the SS benefit incomes in 1983 then that income tax on SS benefits is what gives to the debt? Is this correct?

 

[Renae]

You're not sorry. The further problems you pointed out, fraud and waste, you showed no evidence to support such a claim. None. This is a political debate forum. Not a waste of time in that we are pursuing the facts of this matter. That you do not do so, you are the one wasting “our” time. SS is on unsound financial ground as us all else is supported by taxing our society. The thing is, the most important in our society is us. Hence the importance of SS, which takes care of all people, and healthcare and human services that takes care of all people. So, what facts do you have to contribute to this debate regarding the fraud and waste you say there are in SS? That’s debate. Don’t waste our time tossing lady fingers at us as grenades, then runaway casting sarcasm over your shoulder as you retreat.

New Evidence That Disability Fraud Costs Billions | The Fiscal Times
https://oversight.house.gov/report/...dges-cost-hundreds-billions-taxpayer-dollars/
Why Social Security’s Crackdown on Disability Fraud Is Coming Up Short | The Fiscal Times
SS is a huge boondoggle

 

[GhostlyJoe]

This whole thread is pointless. There will be revolution when the majority, who haven't seen real wage increases in decades, find themselves unable to sustain themselves. Our current economic model is destined to fail as more and more people are unable to extract a living from the economy through labor. Private pensions are gone. 401k matches are largely gone, if such benefits exist at all. If you take away SS, that will be the end.

And for those of you saying the "irresponsible" get what they deserve, remember we bailed out Wall Street. If you're planning to retire on your investments, understand that those investments are illegitimate gains funded by raiding the public coffers and transferring debt to the very generations you now want to screw out of SS. What we should have done was write off private debt so then maybe most Americans would have actually had a chance to save for retirement. Instead, we've been pumping money into the financial sector, which has already failed twice in a century.

We need to raise taxes on the upper income brackets, not lower them. We need to -- gasp! -- redistribute. Keeping the lawn green means tapping the reservoir. If not, I hope you old farts are ready for a fight.

 

[natsb]

why is cam provded a special dispensarion that eliminates the need to pay social security contributions at the same rate of most other Amercians? wealth privilege is all i can see. what is your reason for this this to be found acceptable?

He is not treated special. You, me, and Cam all pay the same rate. We are all subject to the same cap. We are all subject to the same maximum payout. Without the cap, people like Cam would receive millions in SS checks.

I just can't imagine how setting up rich folks to receive a $100,000 SS check will make you feel better, or the system more fair.

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk

 

[Moot]

Liberals are outraged that their pyramid scheme is in jeopardy!

Last time I checked liberals aren't the only ones that "earned" social security.

SS is a social safety net...not a get rich scheme.

 

[Renae]

This whole thread is pointless. There will be revolution when the majority, who haven't seen real wage increases in decades, find themselves unable to sustain themselves. Our current economic model is destined to fail as more and more people are unable to extract a living from the economy through labor. Private pensions are gone. 401k matches are largely gone, if such benefits exist at all. If you take away SS, that will be the end.

And for those of you saying the "irresponsible" get what they deserve, remember we bailed out Wall Street. If you're planning to retire on your investments, understand that those investments are illegitimate gains funded by raiding the public coffers and transferring debt to the very generations you now want to screw out of SS. What we should have done was write off private debt so then maybe most Americans would have actually had a chance to save for retirement. Instead, we've been pumping money into the financial sector, which has already failed twice in a century.

We need to raise taxes on the upper income brackets, not lower them. We need to -- gasp! -- redistribute. Keeping the lawn green means tapping the reservoir. If not, I hope you old farts are ready for a fight.

America just reject your ilks views

 

[GhostlyJoe]

America just reject your ilks views

That's silly and shortsighted, much like believing that Obama being elected twice marked the end of racism or the ultimate triumph of liberalism.

Trump was elected (by far less than half the population, of course) in a populist movement, spurred in large part by the very wage stagnation I'm pointing to. States like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where large manufacturing bases have been whittled away and economic recoveries have been invisible, were the lynch-pin in his electoral victory. Trump spent a lot of time in these places, and he made a lot of promises -- like he would bring back jobs, that he would prevent outsourcing, that he would end trade deals that prevented tariffs and consequences for removing labor jobs.

Now look at Trump's cabinet picks. Goldman-Sachs ring any bells?

You think these middle Americans voted to end Social Security and give tax breaks to 1%ers? Then you're deluded. In fact, they are people who have seen their economic prospects eroded, and they're angry. Trump has the tiger by the tail, sure. If he pivots a to a mainstream GOP agenda or bends over for Wall Street, that tiger will be unleashed. I think this large swath of Americans is just as likely to support an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders as a Donald Trump.

 

[Renae]

That's silly and shortsighted, much like believing that Obama being elected twice marked the end of racism or the ultimate triumph of liberalism.

Trump was elected (by far less than half the population, of course) in a populist movement, spurred in large part by the very wage stagnation I'm pointing to. States like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where large manufacturing bases have been whittled away and economic recoveries have been invisible, were the lynch-pin in his electoral victory. Trump spent a lot of time in these places, and he made a lot of promises -- like he would bring back jobs, that he would prevent outsourcing, that he would end trade deals that prevented tariffs and consequences for removing labor jobs.

Now look at Trump's cabinet picks. Goldman-Sachs ring any bells?

You think these middle Americans voted to end Social Security and give tax breaks to 1%ers? Then you're deluded. In fact, they are people who have seen their economic prospects eroded, and they're angry. Trump has the tiger by the tail, sure. If he pivots a to a mainstream GOP agenda or bends over for Wall Street, that tiger will be unleashed. I think this large swath of Americans is just as likely to support an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders as a Donald Trump.

They voted to get goverment out of out personal, financial and business lives

 

[GhostlyJoe]

They voted to get goverment out of out personal, financial and business lives

BS ... they voted for the promise of jobs delivered by government intervention in the markets, like tariffs. You know, like Trump promised.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Ponzi schemes are never sound that is why they are illegal.
if you were to try and run and investment plan like SS you would be thrown in jail.

You soon run out of new investors and the amount of money that you owe older investors gets to big.
that is the exact issue that SS is facing.

if it was setup to be sound it wouldn't be going broke would it.

Again, I can point you to the Congressional testimony. It is your choice whether to believe it. These are the facts. The payroll taxes were cut in 1940, 1943, 1946 and 1948. Instead of payroll tax of 6%, Congress kept it at 2. In 1950, Congress expanded the program widening the people who were eligible and nearly doubled the size of the program. Payroll taxes wouldn't reach the originally peg rate until the mid 1960s. This isn't a ponzi scheme. It is garden variety vote buying.