- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
End SS instead of throwing money and resources into a black hole.Which is why we must take action to
1 - pop the cap on FICA contribution so that ALL 100% of earners pay FICA on all 100% of their earnings just like 93% of earners do today
2 - freeze benefit levels with a possible modest inflation increase
Studies and experts have demonstrated that if you do these two things, you solve over 80% of this financial problem.
End SS instead of throwing money and resources into a black hole.
I see you are not really big on honoring commitments to the American people when they have fulfilled their end of the deal.
Please, spare me the bull**** line about "honoring commitments" the system has failed it's going to collapse in our faces. And when I say end I don't just mean end, tomorrow, that's it have a nice day. But you're free to push that line of bull****, just remember what that says about you.
Whatever, don't give me that crap about "conservative values" cause you just spoutin' words there.It sounds like I was raised with conservative values while you were not - or at least they did not take in your case. My father raised me to pay ones existing obligations before taking upon any new ones. He also told me that if you have to go out and work harder to raise your income to honor your commitments - then that is what you do.
It is sad that those old fashioned American values are spurned and rejected by some people today who simply view those sentiments as BS - that was your characterization wasn't it.
Whatever, don't give me that crap about "conservative values" cause you just spoutin' words there.
THAT, is conservative values, not the malarkey you're shoveling.
Confsed, nay i am not the one who thinks what you are typing is witty and intelligent commentary.But I already gave it to you. You want it again?
What is there about honoring our national commitments to people who held up their end of the bargain that you do not support? What is there about paying your existing obligations that you have already incurred before taking on new ones that you object to?
Those are old fashioned conservative American values. I have them. Apparently you have turned your back on them. Very sad.
You are badly confusing right wing ideology with traditional American conservative values.
Confsed, nay i am not the one who thinks what you are typing is witty and intelligent commentary.
But you are the one who wants to turn their back upon the American people and not honor our commitments to them when they fulfilled their part of the deal. That is hardly part of any value system which embraces good old fashioned American conservative principles like keeping your word, holding up your end of the bargain and not taking on new expenses until you pay for the ones you already have committed to.
Which is why we must take action to
1 - pop the cap on FICA contribution so that ALL 100% of earners pay FICA on all 100% of their earnings just like 93% of earners do today
2 - freeze benefit levels with a possible modest inflation increase
Studies and experts have demonstrated that if you do these two things, you solve over 80% of this financial problem.
Which aspects of the deal regarding Social Security hasn't been changed, thus far? Ages have been increased, the program has been means tested, the amount of income taxable to Social Security has steadily increased. Any aspect of the program can be changed after the fact and not all of those changed thus far have been popular.
If you remove the cap on FICA taxes without a corresponding benefit increase, you will depress potential GDP indefinitely.
Doing what you suggest will trade "80% of this financial problem" with a whole new set of financial problems.
There is a difference in tweaks and aborting the program.
How so? What evidence do you have of this claim? 93% of earners already pay tax on 100% of their income. How would simply extending that principle to the 7% that do not cause the damage you claim since 93% of Americans would not be adversely impacted or hurt by it?
Agreed, but once a deal is broken, there is no end to where it can end up.
Without an increase in benefits, you are removing hundreds of billions per year from the economy that won't ever be spent. Again, you are "solving" on problem by creating more.
What makes you think that money was going to be spent in the first place each year in the economy? I just do not see it in practical terms. And shoring up SS so it lasts and everyone benefits from it is in itself economic gain for all of us since it prevents the dire situations that would occur if SS collapsed or was ended.
I have heard those who are opposed to SS make statements like that and they love to quote the Court ruling also. But both come up face to face against one giant Mt. everest neither can overcome - the will of the American people. The American people support SS and will not accept its demise no matter what lipstick is placed on that pig to disguise what it really is.
Didn't matter if it was going to be spent or not, taking it via taxes and sticking it in a drawer means it cannot be spent, hence a creation of a permanent annual depression in potential GDP.
If your contention has any validity - it certainly does matter if the money would be spent or not since your argument is that "you are removing hundreds of billions per year from the economy that won't ever be spent". You have to demonstrate that it would be spent in the first place for your argument to have any validity.
Its not my contention, its basic economics. Please read up on potential GDP and its impact. The CBO and FRED have lots of documents and graphs pertaining to the subject.
The $2.8 trillion Social Security Trust Fund is on track to be totally spent by 2030, the Congressional Budget Office : http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45519-QFR_Hatch.pdf
Social Security To Go Bust By 2030 Thanks Partly to ObamaCare: CBO - Investors.comThat's a decade earlier than the CBO estimated as recently as 2011.
It is your contention and you seem powerless to explain it when questioned.
Clearly I'm having a hard time bringing it down to your level, so lets try this.
Which is the better situation:
I can spend between 0 and 4 dollars this year.
I can spend between 0 and 2 dollars this year.
ALl you need to do is spare the personal insults, quit trying to move the goal posts, and provide evidence of what I asked for - namely proof you your claim that extending the FICA tax to the remaining 7% of earners on all their earnings the way it is for the other 93% of earners would somehow damage the economy. You stated that the money would be taken out of the economy because it would not be spent. I stated you might be wrong because one would have to show that money would have to be spent in the economy in the first place. And you have not yet done that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?