GOP Going After Medicare/Social Security

Jack said:
... and, in walks President Trump. Got to hand it to them, they sure know how to work a crowd.
Click to expand...

Endlessly running on change that never materializes. It's even slicker than prostitution, at least hookers provide temporary access to a vagina. The only release the public gets is the spectacle and theater of elections, team colors and bragging rights.
 
LV426 said:
And right now, anyone collecting Social Security is getting more than they contributed because of inflation.
Click to expand...

Correct. We should follow President Obama's recommendation by reducing the COLA increases. Reducing the growth in SS spending can save a lot without tax increases.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
No one will go after the real culprit, militarist occupation of the planet and endless war, which will eventually have to be brought to bear at home to contain the masses.
Click to expand...

Military spending has no connection with Social Security revenues or benefits. Spending on SS (33.26%) and Medicare and health (27.42%) are both higher than military spending (15.88%). But I agree with cuts in the military (and everything else).
 
Flash said:
There are currently more job openings (6.7 million) than unemployed people (6.3 million).
Click to expand...

Right, but what are those jobs? Likely they require skills and background and training those people don't have, but would need. So if you wanted to fill those jobs, you'd need to train and educate people to fill them. I don't see how you get there without a larger investment in education spending.
 
Flash said:
Allowing people to collect full SS benefits at full retirement age without a monetary penalty only encourages people to work longer because they can get an extra $2000 a month on top of their current salary. Any churning in employment is discouraged by current policy.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why I say we should lower the retirement age and expand benefits. It can be easily funded by lifting the cap on taxable SS income, and slightly increasing the payroll tax to cover the Boomers until they eventually die off. Then we can lower the rate because Gen X is smaller and will have fewer people in retirement than the Boomers.
 
Flash said:
Higher income (top 50%) already pay 96% of all federal income taxes. It is ridiculous to make them also pay more of Social Security benefits when there are reforms which could be made to reduce benefit spending without hurting anybody who needs it.
Click to expand...

Top 50%? Huh?

The 50th percentile is income of just $43K a year, which is below the median income of $57K.

We don't need to cut any benefits. If anything, we should be expanding them since COLA increases have been outpaced by inflation.
 
Flash said:
Military spending has no connection with Social Security revenues or benefits. Spending on SS (33.26%) and Medicare and health (27.42%) are both higher than military spending (15.88%). But I agree with cuts in the military (and everything else).
Click to expand...

Priorities are what they are regardless of anyone's feckless shape shifting hair splitting, we're much more like N Korea than we care to admit, only we actually do go all around the world starting wars of empire and economic colonization while economically cannibalizing our own society.
 
Flash said:
Military spending has no connection with Social Security revenues or benefits. Spending on SS (33.26%) and Medicare and health (27.42%) are both higher than military spending (15.88%). But I agree with cuts in the military (and everything else).
Click to expand...

There will come a day of reckoning with entitlement spending, just like unfunded pensions, because we choose not to face it now. That's a decision we choose to make as a country but it's the young people who are going to be forced to deal with it. Retiring baby boomers is a whole new ballgame.
 
Flash said:
The garbage position is the knee jerk reaction to increase taxes instead of reducing spending.
Click to expand...

Cutting benefits helps, how? It takes money out of people's pockets that they'd otherwise be spending. So I don't know why you're so fixated on cutting benefits when the solutions are pretty simple.
 
Flash said:
It is a zero-sum game to want to raise SS taxes on those making over $128,400.
Click to expand...

Anyone making more than $128K is in the top 17% income percentile. And by lifting the cap, you'd also be expanding benefits. So what's the problem?


our problem is that you make assumptions about people's political ideology if they don't follow the lock-step party line.
Click to expand...

My bullshit detector is finely tuned, so when I see someone arguing for cutting Social Security in lieu of tax increases, I become immediately suspicious of their motives and agenda.
 
Flash said:
Income tax cuts do not affect Social Security revenue; so, any claim that tax cuts are seeking to reduce SS benefits is just trash or lack of understanding. As many Republicans members of Congress have reelection campaigns to "save" SS and Medicare as benefits. Older voters are the most reliable Republican supporters and they are not about to risk political suicide by cutting those benefits.
Click to expand...

Well, they just proposed cutting those benefits this week. So it would seem that you're making a false assumption of the Republican Party.
 
Flash said:
Even the liberal think tanks don't claim removing the cap will cover the shortfall. That was a liberal site that said it would only cover 25-90%.
Click to expand...

25 to ninety percent!?

So that's a pretty huge range. And 90% pretty much does cover the shortfall. That's why I also suggested temporarily raising the payroll taxes to cover the influx of Boomers, then reducing those taxes as Boomers die off and the much smaller Generation X enters retirement.
 
Nordberg said:
That argument always amuses me. What you are actually saying is they have all the damn money. The concentration of wealth is so bad, that a smaller percentage of people pay the taxes. That does not mean their wealth is being confiscated. Their tax rates have actually been cut over and over since Reagan. But they have nearly all the fucking money and get more every year. That is is why they pay a bigger chunk, but their percentage of their taxes paid drops every year.
Click to expand...

There's also no rule that says we can't temporarily raise payroll taxes to cover the massive demographic shift of the Boomers into retirement, then lowering those taxes once the Boomers die off.

Again...this is solved so very easily.
 
Nordberg said:
That argument always amuses me. What you are actually saying is they have all the damn money. The concentration of wealth is so bad, that a smaller percentage of people pay the taxes. That does not mean their wealth is being confiscated. Their tax rates have actually been cut over and over since Reagan. But they have nearly all the fucking money and get more every year. That is is why they pay a bigger chunk, but their percentage of their taxes paid drops every year.
Click to expand...

The have the money and they are paying the taxes. Nobody said that was unfair--only stating a fact. You make the automatic assumption that somebody is claiming their money is being confiscated or that it is unfair. Facts don't always come with partisan leanings.
 
LV426 said:
There's also no rule that says we can't temporarily raise payroll taxes to cover the massive demographic shift of the Boomers into retirement, then lowering those taxes once the Boomers die off.

Again...this is solved so very easily.
Click to expand...

Or, reduce unnecessary benefits--even easier. Increased taxes is always the answer for some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top