Panel to suggest cuts to Social Security, Medicare

[cpwill]

now THIS is interesting.

The debt panel advising President Obama is set to recommend in a draft that Social Security and Medicare be cut as a way of lowering the deficit.

The panel also calls for the retirement age to be raised by one month every two years after it reaches 67, "meaning the normal retirement age would reach 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075."

More points in the plan: "Strengthen Social Security for the long haul by returning the system to sustainable solvency. ... Prevent the 22% across the board benefit cut projected to occur in 2037. ... Reduce elderly poverty by putting into place a new, effective special minimum benefit."


1. this is hardly enough and
2. at least this gets the discussion going and the ball rolling.

 

[OscarB63]

frak social security. it has been a ponzi/pyramid scam from day 1.

 

[cpwill]

Expanded breakdown

From the report’s “highlights”

–Achieves nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction through 2020: 50+ specific ways to cut outdated programs and strengthen competitiveness by making Washington cut and invest, not borrow and spend.

–Reduces the deficit to 2.2% of GDP by 2015, exceeding President’s goal of primary balance (about 3% of GDP).

–Reduces tax rates, abolishes the AMT, and cuts backdoor spending in the tax code.

–Caps revenue at or below 21% of GDP and gets spending down to 22% and eventually to 21%.

–Stabilizes debt by 2014 and reduces debt to 60% of GDP by 2024 and 40% by 2037.

–Ensures lasting Social Security solvency, prevents projected 22% cuts in 2037, reduces elderly poverty, and distributes burden fairly.

Part of that tax stuff is Wyden-Gregg-style reform, which would repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax and establish a simplified three-rate system (15, 25, 35 percent); triple standard deductions ($15k for individuals, $30k for families) while eliminating a number of itemized deductions; scale back the mortgage deduction and the charitable-giving deduction; and cap the employer tax benefit for health care at the value of the standard federal employee plan.

The Social Security reforms proposed include:

–Gradually phase in progressive changes to benefit formula by 2050

–Index retirement ages to life expectancy

–Gradually increase taxable maximum to 90% of covered earnings by 2050

–Apply refined cost of living measure (chained-CPI) to COLA

–Cover newly hired state and local workers after 2020

There is also a bunch of health-care spending stuff — letting the “Doc Fix” lapse and reducing reimbursement rates; comprehensive tort reform; shifting some costs in Medicare A and B to seniors; and (dun dun dun!) strengthening the “Independent Payment Advisory Board.”






now, obviously no one is going to let the doc fix lapse; if that occured there would be an immediate revolution by our elderly. i'm concerned that apparently their method of announcing 'debt reduction' is to propose changes that the know nobody will accept. but i like quite a bit the notion of simplifying the tax code.

 

[Boo Radley]

Am I missing where this actual report is?

 

[cpwill]

Drudge report has it in red.



hmmmm.... obviously no one is going to be happy with their ox being gored; but i'm thinking that the child-tax-credit is one that they should have kept or expanded.

 

[Boo Radley]

Drudge report has it in red.



hmmmm.... obviously no one is going to be happy with their ox being gored; but i'm thinking that the child-tax-credit is one that they should have kept or expanded.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it on your link. Do I need to search for it myself?

 

[Whovian]

Draft Proposal from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

EDIT:

And I thought the Democrats wanted to 'protect' social security, not cut it. That's what they've been telling anyone still listening to them.

 

[tacomancer]

now THIS is interesting.

The debt panel advising President Obama is set to recommend in a draft that Social Security and Medicare be cut as a way of lowering the deficit.

The panel also calls for the retirement age to be raised by one month every two years after it reaches 67, "meaning the normal retirement age would reach 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075."

More points in the plan: "Strengthen Social Security for the long haul by returning the system to sustainable solvency. ... Prevent the 22% across the board benefit cut projected to occur in 2037. ... Reduce elderly poverty by putting into place a new, effective special minimum benefit."


1. this is hardly enough and
2. at least this gets the discussion going and the ball rolling.

Well, if we are serious about reducing the deficit and possibly the debt, than someone is going to get the short end of the stick. Its simply a matter of who.

 

[cpwill]

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it on your link. Do I need to search for it myself?

DRUDGE REPORT 2011®

Deficit panel leaders' plan curbs Social Security - Politics - msnbc.com

so on and so forth. are you saying this is not the actual report?

 

[Whovian]

Draft Proposal from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

EDIT:

And I thought the Democrats wanted to 'protect' social security, not cut it. That's what they've been telling anyone still listening to them.

Bump......

 

[Boo Radley]

DRUDGE REPORT 2011®

Deficit panel leaders' plan curbs Social Security - Politics - msnbc.com

so on and so forth. are you saying this is not the actual report?

No, I'm saying I wanted to see the actual report if possible. I didn't know your source and wnanted to make sure it was like NRO and misrepresenting something. Unlike when called on that source, you like other sources here which strengthen your claim.

 

[Boo Radley]

Bump......

They do:

The two were among the first to acknowledge their plan's unpopularity — and to suggest it would be a nonstarter in Congress.

"We'll both be in a witness protection program when this is all over, so look us up," Simpson told reporters. Bowles said: "We're not asking anybody to vote for this plan. This is a starting point."

Deficit panel leaders' plan curbs Social Security - Politics - msnbc.com

But we do have to make choices, and balancing the budget will require cutting spending and raising taxes. Any serious discussion on cutting spending has to include medicare, SS and the military. We will have to make choices, tough choices, if we're serious.

 

[Whovian]

But we do have to make choices, and balancing the budget will require cutting spending and raising taxes. Any serious discussion on cutting spending has to include medicare, SS and the military. We will have to make choices, tough choices, if we're serious.

I do not disagree.

 

[Boo Radley]

I do not disagree.

That's a start.

 

[Whovian]

That's a start.

we've agreed before. Don't act like it's all that :wow:

besides, it probably won't happen again for a while :ninja:

 

[Ockham]

Well, if we are serious about reducing the deficit and possibly the debt, than someone is going to get the short end of the stick. Its simply a matter of who.

Maybe we should "spread the pain" around and reduce everything, but target the entitlements first.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Bump......

Would not protecting SS mean ensuring that it is sustainable as a program?

 

[Taboon]

Great start! There isn't much I could disagree with in this proposal.

 

[tacomancer]

Maybe we should "spread the pain" around and reduce everything, but target the entitlements first.

Given that the vast majority of the federal budget is handouts, I think thats going to inevitably happen, no matter anyone's preference.

 

[Boo Radley]

we've agreed before. Don't act like it's all that :wow:

besides, it probably won't happen again for a while :ninja:

I was being more specific, as related to two agreeing on this particular issue. Did not mean to suggest we always disagree.

And I agree as well that it won't happen yet.

:thumbs:

 

[Boo Radley]

Would not protecting SS mean ensuring that it is sustainable as a program?

Yes. It does.

 

[justabubba]

this is a well considered assessment of the Bowles-Simpson deficit solution proposal:
The Audacity of Austerity - the Deficit Reduction Panel Speaks - Arlington conservative | Examiner.com

... plan is broad-based and bold. It does not tinker at the edges of our debt bomb, but rather it seeks to re-frame the debate by presenting undeniable facts and brutal, but necessary reforms if we are to arrest our slide into banana republic status.
...


Despite the early backlash, there is no denying that the Commission's plan is an honest attempt to deal with the single greatest threat to American prosperity.

The debate can no longer be about who gets what. We must recognize that as a nation, we have over-promised and we no longer have the means to meet those obligations without bankrupting our society.

To fix it, we all must shoulder the pain.

now, let's watch the special interests emerge to assure the good ideas have no chance to be put into action

 

[MaggieD]

Social Security would be completely sustainable were it not for fraud and actuarial mismanagement.

One's Social Security benefit can be viewed, compared to products in private enterprise, as either a disability policy or a lifetime annuity. Insurance companies have built monolithic buildings and bonused their top executives billions using fair actuarial numbers. The benefits are not fair actuarial numbers.

Tom and his employers have paid $117,000 into the Social Security system on his behalf. He is eligible to receive $1910/month starting next October. He works part-time now, so contributions between now and then will be negligible. His life expectancy is 16.28 years from age 66. If he handed that $117,000 to a private company, his annuitized monthly payment (figuring 4% interest) would be $826 -- as compared to the $1910 he'll receive.

If Tom wanted to generate $1910/month for his lifetime with a private annuity, he would have to invest $328,000 as compared to the $117,000 he's invested with Social Security.

Does anyone wonder why SS is unsustainable?

 

[majora$$hole]

Maybe we should "spread the pain" around and reduce everything, but target the entitlements first.

is that anything like "share the welth"?

 

[Whovian]

I was being more specific, as related to two agreeing on this particular issue. Did not mean to suggest we always disagree.

And I agree as well that it won't happen yet.

:thumbs:

damnit...quit agreeing with me! :censored