Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 99

Thread: GOP Senator Proposes "Temporary" End to Social Security and Medicare

  1. #61 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It was pay-as-you-go until a decline in the birth rate and many additional benefits added over the years created a future problem. So, in the 1980s, SS taxes were increased to build a surplus to handle the shortfall (one of the few times government has done something in advance of a problem) caused by the retirement of the baby boomers 2010-2030.

    The SS law requires any surplus to be put in special treasury securities. So, that money is now in about $2.5 trillion of securities which are currently being used or will be used soon (not sure). The securities must be redeemed to pay the shortfall between revenue and benefits.

    The older generations got much more back than they paid in while younger generations will be breaking about even (I have a chart if interested). That means it was much more of a subsidy program than it is becoming. Medicare is even a larger subsidy program in that we usually pay in much less than is spent on our benefits.

    It depends on what other factors change if they remove the cap. If they remove the cap but don't increase benefits then it becomes more of a welfare program and loses a lot of the political popularity of the SS program. If they do raise benefits then you haven't really gained anything. I have not seen anything showing removing the cap would cover the shortfall even though some of our posters claim it would.

    That money is not competing for other spending since infrastructure, climate change, etc. come from the general fund (or state funds on issues such as teacher's pay). SS spending only comes from the SS trust fund paid by the 6.2% payroll tax from workers matched by employers.

    There are many benefits that were not part of the original SS program added over the years that could be cut without hurting needy people. Early retirement at 62 could be eliminated (about 70% of recipients retire early). Workers who reach full retirement age (66) can now collect full benefits with no penalty which means those probably making their highest career salary are collecting full SS.

    Another suggestion is reducing benefits on a sliding scale based on the person's income.

    SS is not in trouble because "Congress spent the money on...." as we often hear.
    Appreciate the response.

    I understand that the money received from removing the cap goes strictly to S.S. What I meant by opportunity cost is eliminating that cap is a massive tax increase. So once you do that the chances of another large tax increase probably aren't good. Therefore we are basically deciding that all this new revenue should be earmarked only for S.S. when we have many competing interests out there. That's the challenge.

  2. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,585
    Thanks
    46,734
    Thanked 68,590 Times in 51,902 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Appreciate the response.

    I understand that the money received from removing the cap goes strictly to S.S. What I meant by opportunity cost is eliminating that cap is a massive tax increase. So once you do that the chances of another large tax increase probably aren't good. Therefore we are basically deciding that all this new revenue should be earmarked only for S.S. when we have many competing interests out there. That's the challenge.
    Let's be honest: Even a Texas housewife living in a trailer home knows that spending more money than the family takes in will only end badly.

    Why can't the Republicans see the same when they cut taxes and raise spending? It isn't fiscally responsible to force debt upon our grandchildren.

    While the trend is to fault Presidents, let's not forget that it's Congress that passes budgets. Presidents only sign them.

    https://ctmirror.org/2021/01/17/dona...omy-for-years/



    https://www.debtconsolidation.com/us-debt-presidents/
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  3. #63 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    The radical, Democrat Socialists pass trillions in useless spending bills causing uncontrolled inflation.

  4. #64 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Appreciate the response.

    I understand that the money received from removing the cap goes strictly to S.S. What I meant by opportunity cost is eliminating that cap is a massive tax increase. So once you do that the chances of another large tax increase probably aren't good. Therefore we are basically deciding that all this new revenue should be earmarked only for S.S. when we have many competing interests out there. That's the challenge.
    It would be a large tax increase for those making higher incomes. The current cap is $147,000 which only includes about 5% of income earners.

  5. #65 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It would be a large tax increase for those making higher incomes. The current cap is $147,000 which only includes about 5% of income earners.
    Yes. (Tax increases are generally targeted at those with the most money.). But unless one believes we can tax them at 100% there’s only so high we can go (both economically and politically). So the opportunity cost factor is still at play.

  6. #66 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    29,740
    Thanks
    2,748
    Thanked 10,875 Times in 8,272 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 594 Times in 590 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Good luck with that shit. Why does it need to be "better"? It's fine as it is, which of course is what he hates.
    If you think SS is fine the way it is that only proves you're an idiot.
    "Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

    "Education is a system of imposed ignorance" - Noam Chomsky

    "Leftists actually think everyone is as stupid as a leftist." - Yakuda

    "No, Trump isn't a fascist, tatt boy." - moon

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Yakuda For This Post:

    anonymoose (10-03-2022)

  8. #67 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,754
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,417 Times in 7,536 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post

    Why can't the Republicans see the same when they cut taxes and raise spending? It isn't fiscally responsible to force debt upon our grandchildren.
    Why only call out republicans? Dims raise taxes and raise spending even more. The effect is about the same. Even your graph bears that out.

  9. #68 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Yes. (Tax increases are generally targeted at those with the most money.). But unless one believes we can tax them at 100% there’s only so high we can go (both economically and politically). So the opportunity cost factor is still at play.
    The SS taxes for a person making $1 million would go from $18,000 to $124,000 (half paid by employer). I assume those wanting to remove the cap want to remove it for the employer, also.

  10. #69 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,585
    Thanks
    46,734
    Thanked 68,590 Times in 51,902 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Why only call out republicans? Dims raise taxes and raise spending even more. The effect is about the same. Even your graph bears that out.
    It's a given that Democrats are spendthrifts. Remember the meme below? The problem is that Republicans used to be the ones that held the Democrats back, not race them to see who can spend the most money.

    If you were as smart as you believe yourself to be, then you would see the problem instead of acting like a fucking Democrat by refusing to accept personal responsibility for your party's fiscal malfeasance and trying to blame only the Democrats.

    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  11. #70 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Let's be honest: Even a Texas housewife living in a trailer home knows that spending more money than the family takes in will only end badly.

    Why can't the Republicans see the same when they cut taxes and raise spending? It isn't fiscally responsible to force debt upon our grandchildren.

    While the trend is to fault Presidents, let's not forget that it's Congress that passes budgets. Presidents only sign them.
    The president does more than sign the budget. He prepares the budget and submits it to Congress. They usually pass it without too many major changes due to its complexity. Also, about 70% of the budget is mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare..) which does not give much flexibility in making the budget.

  12. #71 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,585
    Thanks
    46,734
    Thanked 68,590 Times in 51,902 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The president does more than sign the budget. He prepares the budget and submits it to Congress. They usually pass it without too many major changes due to its complexity. Also, about 70% of the budget is mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare..) which does not give much flexibility in making the budget.
    Presidents can recommend whatever they like, be it going to the Moon or invading Iraq, but they can't do anything without the consent of Congress.

    Congress controls mandatory spending, too. They can add or remove whatever they like. That's why the Republicans are talking about cancelling Social Security and Medicare.

    Example; Rick Scott's plan:
    https://rescueamerica.com/12-point-plan/

    https://rescueamerica.com/steps/6-go...t-reform-debt/
    Many government agencies should be either moved out of Washington or shuttered entirely.

    https://omny.fm/shows/the-regular-jo...-22-whole-show

    “In an interview that aired Tuesday on “The Regular Joe Show” podcast, Johnson lamented that the Social Security and Medicare programs automatically grant benefits to those who meet the qualifications — that is, to those who had been paying into the system over their working life....

    …“Johnson suggested that Social Security and Medicare be transformed into programs whose budgets are appropriated by Congress on an annual basis.”
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  13. #72 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Presidents can recommend whatever they like, be it going to the Moon or invading Iraq, but they can't do anything without the consent of Congress.

    Congress controls mandatory spending, too. They can add or remove whatever they like. That's why the Republicans are talking about cancelling Social Security and Medicare.
    All true but not reality. Congress doesn't pass a budget much different than what the president submits. Controlling mandatory spending is political suicide. We both know that nobody is going to cancel Social Security or Medicare; however, it must be fixed in order to continue paying full benefits.

  14. #73 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,585
    Thanks
    46,734
    Thanked 68,590 Times in 51,902 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    All true but not reality. Congress doesn't pass a budget much different than what the president submits. Controlling mandatory spending is political suicide. We both know that nobody is going to cancel Social Security or Medicare; however, it must be fixed in order to continue paying full benefits.
    Which is exactly the problem. Why do you think Congress fails to do it's job?
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  15. #74 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Which is exactly the problem. Why do you think Congress fails to do it's job?
    I don't think they fail to do their job. The Budget & Accounting Act (1921) created the system requiring the president to submit an annual budget to consolidate spending and created the OMB to collect and create a unified budget. Previously, each agency submitted its own budget request which made it impossible to control the budget. It is a very complex process and Congress does not have the necessary staff to complete the job.

    They can always make changes in the president's budget and they do, but that defeats the purpose of a unified budget. They hold hearings and the 13(?) appropriations subcommittees each pass the budgets of the various departments and agencies.

  16. #75 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,754
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,417 Times in 7,536 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    It's a given that Democrats are spendthrifts. Remember the meme below? The problem is that Republicans used to be the ones that held the Democrats back, not race them to see who can spend the most money.

    If you were as smart as you believe yourself to be, then you would see the problem instead of acting like a fucking Democrat by refusing to accept personal responsibility for your party's fiscal malfeasance and trying to blame only the Democrats.
    I blame them both, stupid.

Similar Threads

  1. Are Social Security, unemployment insurance, and Medicare "socialism?"
    By NiftyNiblick in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 02-11-2021, 01:49 PM
  2. Spunky Seniors Say, "Nuts to Social Security" Vote Trump
    By martin in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-26-2020, 11:12 AM
  3. GOP Senator Proposes "Denmark Style" Relief & Out Lefts Dems!
    By Cinnabar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 04-16-2020, 06:14 PM
  4. Social Security Owes "Fugitives" Millions
    By Timshel in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 10:35 AM
  5. Obama proposes massive new "civilian national security force"
    By Little-Acorn in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 01:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •