"Super Committee" decides to go full stupid

Darla said:
No that will not happen in 2037, it is an irresponsible scare tactic. SS is completely solvent for the next quarter century, how many programs can make this claim? And come 2030, we will just have to make a few tweaks much like Ronald Reagan did. There is no problem.

If you know people on the left who "seem happy" over the idea of slashing SS in any year, they are either in need of medication or they aren't really on the left. I know of no one on the left who is anything other than determined to protect SS at all costs.
Click to expand...

I can't really tell you how not reassuring "there is no problem" sounds to me. What tweaks? SS is a mathematical impossibility. It requires suspension of disbelief to think it's fine.
 
Onceler said:
I can't really tell you how not reassuring "there is no problem" sounds to me. What tweaks? SS is a mathematical impossibility. It requires suspension of disbelief to think it's fine.
Click to expand...

I already told you; raise the cap gradually and raise the payroll tax by a lousy 1 percent. Or, just eliminate the cap. You should read Krugman on this, he's explained it a million times. Maybe you have fallen victim to that old American belief that if only you could invest your SS money yourself, you'll be rich beyond belief. But while that may work out okay for a few, studies show that you need to make 60 thousand a year in order to save for your retirement. The simple facts dictate that most Americans would not be able to do so in that case. And if you are going to say they can use the few bucks taken our of their weekly pay for SS and invest it themselves, then you are really living in a dreamworld. And one that will fast turn into a nightmare world were our elderly have no income whatsoever. And we simply are not going to do that.
 
Darla said:
No that will not happen in 2037, it is an irresponsible scare tactic. SS is completely solvent for the next quarter century, how many programs can make this claim? And come 2030, we will just have to make a few tweaks much like Ronald Reagan did. There is no problem.

If you know people on the left who "seem happy" over the idea of slashing SS in any year, they are either in need of medication or they aren't really on the left. I know of no one on the left who is anything other than determined to protect SS at all costs.
Click to expand...

1) It is actually 2036 if we do nothing
2) No, we cannot wait until 2030 to make a tweak. The changes need to be made NOW.
3) privatization does not mean handing the money over to wall street. The money is ALREADY held by JP Morgan. Privatization would be an improvement over the current system. It would stop the government from borrowing from the SS funds.
 
Onceler said:
I can't really tell you how not reassuring "there is no problem" sounds to me. What tweaks? SS is a mathematical impossibility. It requires suspension of disbelief to think it's fine.
Click to expand...


I think you are both partially correct. While I would prefer privatization as an option, the system could be solvent without benefit cuts by creating the donut hole. ie... start taxing all income regardless of source over $500k at 2% (I think that is the number I saw). That said, we cannot wait until 2030 to make a tweak. The change needs to be put in place ASAP.

The one plus is that the echo boomers are a larger demographic than the baby boomers. They should be hitting peak earning years as the boomers begin dying off. The main thing is getting us over the hump of the next 20 years, while leaving the system sustainable for when the echo's retire. We need to adjust the age up based on life expectancy, despite the nonsense from Krugman. An individuals ability to work to age 70 has increased with improvements in medical care and technology. That said, we can further alleviate that concern if we start a national push towards lowering obesity in this country. Not only would that help SS, but it would also help Medicare costs in the future.
 
Superfreak said:
1) It is actually 2036 if we do nothing
2) No, we cannot wait until 2030 to make a tweak. The changes need to be made NOW.
3) privatization does not mean handing the money over to wall street. The money is ALREADY held by JP Morgan. Privatization would be an improvement over the current system. It would stop the government from borrowing from the SS funds.
Click to expand...

Nope, we don't actually have to do it now. But urgency is certainly a tactic used by those who want to ram their self-servicing policies down throats. You need to instill urgency and fear in order to do this.

In fact, the trust fund is invested in US Treasury Bills. And if we privatize, the funds would not be. They would be gambled. By the same people who already robbed the rest of the money.
 
Superfreak said:
I think you are both partially correct. While I would prefer privatization as an option, the system could be solvent without benefit cuts by creating the donut hole. ie... start taxing all income regardless of source over $500k at 2% (I think that is the number I saw). That said, we cannot wait until 2030 to make a tweak. The change needs to be put in place ASAP.

The one plus is that the echo boomers are a larger demographic than the baby boomers. They should be hitting peak earning years as the boomers begin dying off. The main thing is getting us over the hump of the next 20 years, while leaving the system sustainable for when the echo's retire. We need to adjust the age up based on life expectancy, despite the nonsense from Krugman. An individuals ability to work to age 70 has increased with improvements in medical care and technology. That said, we can further alleviate that concern if we start a national push towards lowering obesity in this country. Not only would that help SS, but it would also help Medicare costs in the future.
Click to expand...

No, we cannot further raise the retirement age - it has already been raised and is already scheduled to be raised again. For those who sit at a desk all day in temperature-controlled offices, it's a very easy thing to airily wave their hand and say, "what's another two years of this"?

For those who make their living doing manual labor, it is a struggle to make it even to 60. Further, it those people who are NOT receiving the benefits of our "rising life expectancy". There is a true socio-economic divide between who is living longer and who isn't. So, your plan would rob and steal lifetimes of SS insurance payments from manual laborers who not only could not make it working until 70, but whom will be dead by 70.

Not going to cut it.
 
"That said, we can further alleviate that concern if we start a national push towards lowering obesity in this country. Not only would that help SS, but it would also help Medicare costs in the future. "

This is imperative for Medicare and Medicaid. I will agree with that. Lowering health care costs period is something that we would be working on if we had serious people leading. But as I said, we do not. We have whores. Bought, paid for, and owned. And they aren't going to solve anything until we pass crisis mode and the people force them to do it. And that's what is going to happen. Anything else is a pipe dream in this country filled with idiots, run by whores, owned by a handful of corporate masters.
 
Darla said:
That's Carlin predicting what is happening right now. Thankfully, outside of message boards, I know of no Americans who want to slavishly surrender their Ss and Medicare - nor their children's. Thankfully, outside of message boards, Americans are looking to shiv the mf'er who comes for it.

Never, have a bigger collection of pussies gathered in one place, than on the internet.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could have elective surgery and make yours smaller!!
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Maybe you could have elective surgery and make yours smaller!!
Click to expand...

The dirty old man at it again. Why don't you keep your mindless smut to the war zone where nearly every thread you and your skanky buddy are involved in ends up?

You add nothing to this board other than mindless, vulgarity. You're a disgusting old man.
 
I know Damo is a libertarian, or at least says he's one when he's not shilling for Newt, but I'd fully support a board where the thread originator could restrict the thread itself to certain posters, and ensure that other posters not be able to post on it. Maybe it's elitist or discriminatory in some way, but I really wouldn't care.
 
Darla said:
No, he wants to protect SS for the rest of us. And he knows what you're too fucking stupid to know, and that's why your owners love you. They love you. They adore you. They probably should send you a card, but don't count on it..

What Sanders knows is that as soon as you allow means-testing of SS, SS will have begun its journey into non-existence.

Because it will allow your masters to slap a poor, and hopefully a black! face onto it, and call it welfare.

And then it's over.

And then your children die like poor street urchins. Which I really have no problem with, except that it will screw me too. So while fighting for my own interests, I invariably must fight for the interests of inbred morons who deserve to get what they're on their knees begging for. That bothers me, but, what are you going to do?
Click to expand...

right.....the left actually believes that if we take away Donald Trump's $12k a year SS disbursement our children will die like poor street urchins......if you do in fact believe this you should not be permitted to run a government.....
 
Onceler said:
I know Damo is a libertarian, or at least says he's one when he's not shilling for Newt, but I'd fully support a board where the thread originator could restrict the thread itself to certain posters, and ensure that other posters not be able to post on it. Maybe it's elitist or discriminatory in some way, but I really wouldn't care.
Click to expand...

They attempt to destroy every thread on the board, and as Top said it's only a couple of them. I agree.
 
Darla said:
I already told you; raise the cap gradually and raise the payroll tax by a lousy 1 percent. Or, just eliminate the cap. You should read Krugman on this, he's explained it a million times. Maybe you have fallen victim to that old American belief that if only you could invest your SS money yourself, you'll be rich beyond belief. But while that may work out okay for a few, studies show that you need to make 60 thousand a year in order to save for your retirement. The simple facts dictate that most Americans would not be able to do so in that case. And if you are going to say they can use the few bucks taken our of their weekly pay for SS and invest it themselves, then you are really living in a dreamworld. And one that will fast turn into a nightmare world were our elderly have no income whatsoever. And we simply are not going to do that.
Click to expand...

I haven't read Krugman in quite awhile. To be honest, he started to bug me around the time of the stimulus. I think he was mainly right about issues regarding the stimulus, but he was pretty insufferable about his right-ness.

I'll look up some of what he has to say about it. I have read a lot about SS, and I'm a firm believer in privatization (really, it just doesn't seem like anyone can lose; maybe retirees wouldn't "get rich," but there are ways to structure it where they'd certainly get more than they're getting). I'm open to other ideas, though. Just not denial about the problems inherent in SS as it is set up.
 
Darla said:
Nope, we don't actually have to do it now. But urgency is certainly a tactic used by those who want to ram their self-servicing policies down throats. You need to instill urgency and fear in order to do this.

In fact, the trust fund is invested in US Treasury Bills. And if we privatize, the funds would not be. They would be gambled. By the same people who already robbed the rest of the money.
Click to expand...

1) According to the Social Security Admin, we DO need to act now.
2) Your privatization comments are simply scare tactics used by people like Krugman. Privatization does NOT mean the money is 'gambled' or that it is all invested in the stock market or that it all goes to Wall Street firms to be run at their whim. It means the money is untouchable by the US government. You can privatize and require that the entire amount go to Treasury bonds (not bills) and thus not change the risk factor. That would be a start. The benefit of private accounts is that each person funds their own. You don't have a rob Peter to pay Paul ponzi scheme that is can be threatened by demographic trends like we are seeing today.
 
Onceler said:
I haven't read Krugman in quite awhile. To be honest, he started to bug me around the time of the stimulus. I think he was mainly right about issues regarding the stimulus, but he was pretty insufferable about his right-ness.

I'll look up some of what he has to say about it. I have read a lot about SS, and I'm a firm believer in privatization (really, it just doesn't seem like anyone can lose; maybe retirees wouldn't "get rich," but there are ways to structure it where they'd certainly get more than they're getting). I'm open to other ideas, though. Just not denial about the problems inherent in SS as it is set up.
Click to expand...

He is insufferable and arrogant! It's funny insufferable and arrogant people don't bother me as long as they have something to be arrogant about, and he does. I was with a guy friend one of the times I heard Krugman speak (as you know I'm sort of a Krugman groupie), and Krugman starts out by saying that asking questions was fine, but making speeches was not - people came there to hear him not you. And my friend got so pissed, I mean he was fuming. He was all like "wtf did he just say? did I hear that right?" And I was like, yeah you heard it right - he said shut up no one is here to hear you, they're here the hear him. And then he got even madder, I couldn't stop laughing.

But I like it.
 
Eliminate the cap, eliminate benefits for anyone earning four times the poverty level, double benefits for anyone under poverty level, phased benefits between.....

charge SS taxes on all income including dividends and interest.....

eliminate employee contribution on all earnings under poverty level, double employer contributions on all employees earning under poverty level.....eliminate the EIC.......

While you're at it, eliminate corporate income taxes, raise taxes on individuals for profits made by corporations on a per stock share basis.......eliminate the deduction of benefit packages from corporate income in calculating profits.....

make all health insurance premiums deductible.....

make college expenses deductible....

eliminate itemized deductions and just keep the standard deduction......

eliminate all other tax credits.....and build them into the standard deduction or simply make them deductibles....

simple tax returns......

start with your W2 or Schedule C (Profit or Loss)
add income from dividends (including corporate profits), interest, rent
subtract health insurance premiums, college tuition, standard deduction
pay tax on what's left.....
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
1) According to the Social Security Admin, we DO need to act now.
2) Your privatization comments are simply scare tactics used by people like Krugman. Privatization does NOT mean the money is 'gambled' or that it is all invested in the stock market or that it all goes to Wall Street firms to be run at their whim. It means the money is untouchable by the US government. You can privatize and require that the entire amount go to Treasury bonds (not bills) and thus not change the risk factor. That would be a start. The benefit of private accounts is that each person funds their own. You don't have a rob Peter to pay Paul ponzi scheme that is can be threatened by demographic trends like we are seeing today.
Click to expand...

LOL But that would never happen. That's why Wall St is salivating. They want our money. And they know that they own enough politicians, including our current President, and our next one, that they can get it. It's just like Carlin said - they want you SS so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall St.

Sorry SF, no sale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top