Will Democrats Let Us Save Social Security?

[JoeB131]

Yeah, all that fast-tracking vaccines to get them out as soon as possible, shutting down travel from highly infected areas (oh, wait, we didn't do that one, there was a political party dead set against doing anything like that), accepting and following CDC mask and distancing dictates. Big time publicity stunts.

Actually, they all were.

Most of the research on Covid Vaccines were done in other countries.

Trump's travel ban actually made things worse, because while it kept out uninfected Chinese, it brought in a shitload of infected Americans who were released back into he country without a quarantine. Trump's priority was getting Americans back and off cruise ships, instead of keeping them out of the general pool.

Trump also fought against masks and social distancing at every step, because it made him look weak.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yes, something catastrophic did happen. We needed a President to show leadership, and we got a Game Show Host doing publicity stunts.

Oh, my gosh. You are so brainwashed and uninformed it is comical. It is impossible to reason with you. But, FYI, Trump had no power over the states to dictate their safety measures in response to COVID. Nor did Trump control the CDC. But, Trump did do a great job in pushing vaccine development.

The catastrophic part of the pandemic came when Democratic governors, along with some Republican governors, imposed draconian lockdown measures that needlessly shut down tens of thousands of businesses and threw millions of people out of work.

It's revealing to note that since Biden took office, we have had three spikes in new COVID cases that equaled or exceeded the spikes in 2020 and early 2021. Yet, Democratic governors did not respond by reimposing their draconian 2020 lockdown measures. Gee, why is that? Because they didn't want to wreck the economy with Biden in the White House?

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, my gosh. You are so brainwashed and uninformed it is comical. It is impossible to reason with you. But, FYI, Trump had no power over the states to dictate their safety measures in response to COVID. Nor did Trump control the CDC. But, Trump did do a great job in pushing vaccine development.

Trump didn't control the CDC? Really?

As far as the states. the Blue States were doing the right thing. It was the RED states who were the problem, refusing to do lockdowns or social distancing. Given the GOP's pant-shitting fear of the man, please don't tell me he couldn't have whipped Abbot and DeSatan in line if he really wanted to.

He could unleash and angry mob to murder them and they STILL wouldn't turn on him.

The catastrophic part of the pandemic came when Democratic governors, along with some Republican governors, imposed draconian lockdown measures that needlessly shut down tens of thousands of businesses and threw millions of people out of work.

Because Trump let the virus get into the country to start with. Oh, yeah, and he told people to inject bleach and take quack cures.

It's revealing to note that since Biden took office, we have had three spikes in new COVID cases that equaled or exceeded the spikes in 2020 and early 2021. Yet, Democratic governors did not respond by reimposing their draconian 2020 lockdown measures. Gee, why is that? Because they didn't want to wreck the economy with Biden in the White House?

I think you miss the point. Under Biden we had vaccines and a better understanding of how the virus worked.

 

[hadit]

Trump didn't control the CDC? Really?

As far as the states. the Blue States were doing the right thing. It was the RED states who were the problem, refusing to do lockdowns or social distancing. Given the GOP's pant-shitting fear of the man, please don't tell me he couldn't have whipped Abbot and DeSatan in line if he really wanted to.

He could unleash and angry mob to murder them and they STILL wouldn't turn on him.



Because Trump let the virus get into the country to start with. Oh, yeah, and he told people to inject bleach and take quack cures.

That right there nullifies your entire argument, dingleberry.

I think you miss the point. Under Biden we had vaccines and a better understanding of how the virus worked.

Because of TRUMPS! fast-tracking them.

 

[JoeB131]

Because of TRUMPS! fast-tracking them.

Most of the work on Vaccines was done outside the US. Besides, you guys don't believe in vaccines, Wet Fart.

 

[hadit]

Most of the work on Vaccines was done outside the US. Besides, you guys don't believe in vaccines, Wet Fart.

Really? Using that foil helmet you ordered from the back page of your comic book to read minds again, dingleberry?

Then, of course, there's the fast-tracking you can't seem to locate in your cherry-picking historical searches.

 

[JoeB131]

Really? Using that foil helmet you ordered from the back page of your comic book to read minds again, dingleberry?

Then, of course, there's the fast-tracking you can't seem to locate in your cherry-picking historical searches.

don't need to, Wet Fart.

Big Pharma got a vaccine, and trump fucked up the rollout. Then signed on to a bunch of anti-vax conspiracy theories because he didn't want Biden to get the credit.

 

[hadit]

don't need to, Wet Fart.

Big Pharma got a vaccine, and trump fucked up the rollout. Then signed on to a bunch of anti-vax conspiracy theories because he didn't want Biden to get the credit.

How much do they pay you to revise history like that?

 

[JoeB131]

How much do they pay you to revise history like that?

No revision at all.

Government Classes will be teaching Trump's Covid Response under "DON'T DO THAT" for generations.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The liberal replies in this thread are a sad example of why Social Security is heading toward insolvency. Based on an irrational Marxist hatred of wealth and success, the liberals' only "solution" to Social Security's impending crisis is to just tax the rich even more than we're already taxing them.

And when you try to explain to liberals, and prove to them, that the rich already pay a hefty share of their income in federal, state, and local taxes, they cite ridiculous far-left articles that brazenly lie and grossly distort the facts about the taxes paid by the rich.

When you point out to them that numerous state governments offer retirement plans to their employees that include the option to invest in stocks, private bonds, and government bonds, they usually say nothing or casually dismiss this fact because it debunks their baseless fear-mongering about allowing people a similar option for their Social Security deductions.

Let me repeat what the Social Security Administration itself said about the fact that by 2035--in just 11 years--Social Security payroll tax revenue will only cover 75% of scheduled benefits:

Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman. Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035; adjustments to taxes or benefits that offset the effects of the lower birth rate may restore solvency for the Social Security program on a sustainable basis for the foreseeable future. Finally, as Treasury debt securities (trust fund assets) are redeemed in the future, they will just be replaced with public debt. If trust fund assets are exhausted without reform, benefits will necessarily be lowered with no effect on budget deficits. (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program)

This 25% shortfall will be "basically stable" after 2035--in other words, the shortfall won't increase further, but revenue will still only cover 75% of scheduled benefits. However, IF we make "adjustments" to taxes or benefits, this "may" restore solvency. Read: If we raise the payroll tax or reduce benefits, this may restore solvency, i.e., so that revenue will cover scheduled benefits.

And did you catch that last part? If Social Security trust fund assets are "exhausted without reform," benefits will "necessarily" be reduced and with no effect on budget deficits.

A rational solution involves a moderate reduction in benefits, allowing the payroll tax to be applied to all earned income and not just to income under $168K, allowing people the option to invest part of their SS taxes in conservative mutual funds and bonds, and applying a means test for benefits so that people who already have a large retirement income--say $80K and above--receive a substantially reduced Social Security benefit.

 

[Smokin' OP]

The liberal replies in this thread are a sad example of why Social Security is heading toward insolvency. Based on an irrational Marxist hatred of wealth and success, the liberals' only "solution" to Social Security's impending crisis is to just tax the rich even more than we're already taxing them.

And when you try to explain to liberals, and prove to them, that the rich already pay a hefty share of their income in federal, state, and local taxes, they cite ridiculous far-left articles that brazenly lie and grossly distort the facts about the taxes paid by the rich.

When you point out to them that numerous state governments offer retirement plans to their employees that include the option to invest in stocks, private bonds, and government bonds, they usually say nothing or casually dismiss this fact because it debunks their baseless fear-mongering about allowing people a similar option for their Social Security deductions.

Let me repeat what the Social Security Administration itself said about the fact that by 2035--in just 11 years--Social Security payroll tax revenue will only cover 75% of scheduled benefits:



This 25% shortfall will be "basically stable" after 2035--in other words, the shortfall won't increase further, but revenue will still only cover 75% of scheduled benefits. However, IF we make "adjustments" to taxes or benefits, this "may" restore solvency. Read: If we raise the payroll tax or reduce benefits, this may restore solvency, i.e., so that revenue will cover scheduled benefits.

And did you catch that last part? If Social Security trust fund assets are "exhausted without reform," benefits will "necessarily" be reduced and with no effect on budget deficits.

A rational solution involves a moderate reduction in benefits, allowing the payroll tax to be applied to all earned income and not just to income under $168K, allowing people the option to invest part of their SS taxes in conservative mutual funds and bonds, and applying a means test for benefits so that people who already have a large retirement income--say $80K and above--receive a substantially reduced Social Security benefit.

What a dumbass.

From YOUR link.

by Stephen C. Goss
Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 70, No. 3, 2010?

The findings and conclusions presented in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Social Security Administration.

 

[JoeB131]

The liberal replies in this thread are a sad example of why Social Security is heading toward insolvency. Based on an irrational Marxist hatred of wealth and success, the liberals' only "solution" to Social Security's impending crisis is to just tax the rich even more than we're already taxing them.

Um, actually, we had our greatest prosperity when the rich paid a top rate of 93%, 33% of the workforce was unionized, and the government had the back of the working man.

Then Republicans realized that if you play on the racial, sexual, and religious fears of stupid white people, they'll happily throw away all their benefits so "the other" doesn't get them.

A rational solution involves a moderate reduction in benefits, allowing the payroll tax to be applied to all earned income and not just to income under $168K, allowing people the option to invest part of their SS taxes in conservative mutual funds and bonds, and applying a means test for benefits so that people who already have a large retirement income--say $80K and above--receive a substantially reduced Social Security benefit.

A rational solution would be to stop the crooked book keeping that lets the government keep three sets of books, have everything in general fund and have the rich pay their fair share.

100% rate and we harvest them for transplant organs, would be fair to me, but I'm willing to meet you halfway. Maybe 75% and we only take a kidney.

 

[Dragonlady]

Every time someone proposes a sane, rational, sensible reform of Social Security (SS) to make the system solvent for decades to come, Democrats demagogue it, lie about it, and scare seniors into believing they will be left to starve. Will Democrats ever stop lying about badly needed SS reforms before the system is insolvent?

According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.

We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:

-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.

-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.

-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.

In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.

Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.

Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.

Every Republican proposal for SS would END Social Security for all Americans.

Giving people the ability to opt out, will end SS because no will participate. The poor will opt out because they can't afford to contribute and the rich will opt out because they can do better with private plans.

 

[Dagosa]

The liberal replies in this thread are a sad example of why Social Security is heading toward insolvency.

It’s not….but keep stocking fear while the US economy experiences unprecedented growth. Conservatives aren’t happy unless they are staring at a recession……will collecting their SS and Medicare,

 

[Lesh]

It’s not….but keep stocking fear while the US economy experiences unprecedented growth. Conservatives aren’t happy unless they are staring at a recession……will collecting their SS and Medicare,

They deny that recessions are happening even while they are happening if a Republican is in the White House

And pretend they are when they aren’t if a Dem is in the White House

 

[Dagosa]

They deny that recessions are happening even while they are happening if a Republican is in the White House

And pretend they are when they aren’t if a Dem is in the White House

They have to pretend. They have programs no one wants.