Democrats Are Once Again Sabotaging Desperately Needed Social Security Reform

[Lesh]

Is this a bait thread?

asking for a few friends

Smash the cap

One way to fix Social Security? "Smash the cap"

Eliminating or lifting the tax cap would help stabilize Social Security, while also being fairer to most Americans, experts say.

www.cbsnews.com

A
Oh and by the way… the biggest problem with the Reust Fund is the Baby Boomers.

Almost all of whom will be gone by 2046

 

[Lisa558]

Under your idea you have to be 68 to retire, but the wealthy pay no more then they do now. OK.

1) The wealthy get back much less than average workers in comparison to average workers, and

2) I said to raise the cap to $200,000, so they WILL be paying more. I noticed you did not quote that part of my post, which is a deceitful way to enable you to lie. (Such a liberal.)

P.S. When SS was instituted, people only lived a few years past 65. Now they are living into their late 80s and early 90s - or beyond. The program wasn’t set up to pay out for 30 years.

 

[BluesLegend]

Confiscate all the wealth from every corrupt Democrat and use it to pay back some of the money Democrats stole from social security. They stole $2 trillion and gave us a worthless IOU they can't pay. Yet these Dem gas bags in congress somehow are now worth $50, $75, $150 million dollars on their congressional salaries

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, the earnings limit for SS taxes is a huge tax break for high income earners. Why should their marginal tax rates suddenly drop by 6% after they earn $200k? Any additional SS benefits they might receive would be calculated at a greatly reduced rate of return. That is why they are opposed to this idea.

Actually, the earnings limit for SS taxes is a huge tax break for high income earners.

LOL! That's funny right there.

Why should their marginal tax rates suddenly drop by 6% after they earn $200k?

Because they're already paying 32%, up from 24%, on income over $191,951 and the Social Security cap was $168,600.

 

[WorldWatcher]

PA had a defined benefit pension.
They then switched to SS, so then the pay deduction (& match) into the defined benefit pension was frozen.
Some got both, but the defined benefit pensions were computed based on years paid in.
Same with SSA. Your benefit computes by what you paid in.
I'm probably being petty, but IMHO Federal employees should not get two pensions, it should be one or the other, like PA.

Thanks for the explanation!

Ummm - PA still has pensions.

EEs prior to January 1, 2019 are grandfathered into the old pension system as well as paying into Social Security.

After January 1, 2019 new employees are hired into a Hybrid system where part of the pays into a pension AND they still pay into Social Security.

Now, why should employees pay into TWO retirement systems (SS and fund a pension system) but not be able to draw benefits from both?

BTW - Just so you now, and I assume it's similar in PA to the Hybrid we have in VA. The "Old" pension plain paid out at a higher right, "hybrid" plan pensions typically cut the pension portion so it's lower. Employees get a smaller "pension" and are expected to fund their 401k/403b defined contribution plans.

WW
.
.
.

https://sers.pa.gov/Employees-New.html

 

[BluesLegend]

I'll skip to the end for all you younger people, government is going to jack up the social security taxes AGAIN for the 2nd time to cover the money it stole from social security after the 1st tax increase and the mismanagement. You will get to pay double.

Now, who would hire government to mow their lawn? Yeah, nobody.

 

[kyzr]

PA still has pensions EEs prior to January 1, 2019 are grandfathered into the old pension system as well as paying into Social Security.

True. As I understood it everyone's defined benefit pensions were "frozen" as of that date, and they would only be paying into SSA, so they only pay for one pension, SSA. But they get to keep the "frozen" defined benefit pension they earned.

After January 1, 2019 new employees are hired into a Hybrid system where part of the pays into a pension AND they still pay into Social Security. Now, why should employees pay into TWO retirement systems (SS and fund a pension system) but not be able to draw benefits from both?

After that date new hires would only be in SSA, not the defined benefit pension. It makes no sense to keep the defined benefit system, then the state pays more instead of less for pensions.

BTW - Just so you now, and I assume it's similar in PA to the Hybrid we have in VA. The "Old" pension plain paid out at a higher right, "hybrid" plan pensions typically cut the pension portion so it's lower. Employees get a smaller "pension" and are expected to fund their 401k/403b defined contribution plans. WW

Exactly. They can put into their 401k, plus they build their SS pension.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Stop baiting people! Start a new thread that is less about baiting people and more on some sort of principle you lack. Democrats this, Democrats that... Evil Democrats! Okay. We get it.

The truth hurts. If the shoe fits, wear it. George W. Bush offered an entirely reasonable SS reform bill, and you guys smeared and demagogued it. The GOP is again offering some sensible SS reform, and you guys are once again smearing it and spewing demagoguery. That's all you ever do on this issue.

 

[Dante]

The truth hurts. If the shoe fits, wear it. George W. Bush offered an entirely reasonable SS reform bill, and you guys smeared and demagogued it. The GOP is again offering some sensible SS reform, and you guys are once again smearing it and spewing demagoguery. That's all you ever do on this issue.

really?

I mean, really?

inject sarcasm
mikegriffith1
Q: How did Bush try to reform Social Security?

Bush outlined a major initiative to reform Social Security which included partial privatization of the system, personal Social Security accounts, and options to permit Americans to divert a portion of their Social Security tax (FICA) into secured investments.

We all know (well some of at least), why - why Social Security exists. What was America like before Social Security came into existence - with conservatives and the GOP fighting against it every step of the way. President George W. Bush designated fundamental Social Security reform as his top domestic priority. Like Trump in 2024, In 2004, "W." thought he had a mandate.

Note, in 2004, G. W. Bush had an even better win than Trump got 2024. Bush got 50.7% of the popular vote. Trump? 49.8% of the popular vote.


Why the 2005 Social Security Initiative Failed, and What it Means for the Future
William A. Galston
September 21, 2007

Following his successful 2004 reelection campaign, President George W. Bush designated fundamental Social Security reform as his top domestic priority.

...

Having invested so much political capital in this issue, President Bush embarked on the first of what proved to be a long series of tours crammed with events at which he pitched his plan to the people. It soon became apparent that it would be a tough sell. Within weeks, observers noticed that the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined. According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush’s handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent–between his State of the Union address and June.

By early summer the initiative was on life support, with congressional Democrats uniformly opposed...

 

[mikegriffith1]

really?

I mean, really?

inject sarcasm

Yes, really. And I see you've started a ridiculous thread that claims Democrats have been on board with every non-partisan initiative, and your most recent example is from the 1980s when Reagan and O'Neill passed important SS reform. Why don't you talk about what Democrats have done since the 1980s every time Republicans have proposed sensible SS reforms?

Do you know what SS is now costing us each year? Take a guess. $1.4T. It's the second largest item in the federal budget, second only to Medicare.

In about 7 years, SS revenue won't cover scheduled benefits. By 2035, the gap will grow to 25% so that SS revenue will only cover 75% of scheduled benefits.

"Tax the rich more" is not going to work.

 

[WorldWatcher]

True. As I understood it everyone's defined benefit pensions were "frozen" as of that date, and they would only be paying into SSA, so they only pay for one pension, SSA. But they get to keep the "frozen" defined benefit pension they earned.

After that date new hires would only be in SSA, not the defined benefit pension. It makes no sense to keep the defined benefit system, then the state pays more instead of less for pensions.

Exactly. They can put into their 401k, plus they build their SS pension.

You need to explore the link I provided. Your “I understood” is incorrect.

Older employers still are accruing pensions and paying into SS.

Younger employees are still accruing pension (lower) AND paying into 401Ks AND paying into SS.

They are not frozen.

Like I said check the link provided to the PA state retirement systems.

WW

 

[Dante]

Yes, really. And I see you've started a ridiculous thread that claims Democrats have been on board with every non-partisan initiative, and your most recent example is from the 1980s when Reagan and O'Neill passed important SS reform. Why don't you talk about what Democrats have done since the 1980s every time Republicans have proposed sensible SS reforms?

Do you know what SS is now costing us each year? Take a guess. $1.4T. It's the second largest item in the federal budget, second only to Medicare.

In about 7 years, SS revenue won't cover scheduled benefits. By 2035, the gap will grow to 25% so that SS revenue will only cover 75% of scheduled benefits.

"Tax the rich more" is not going to work.

edited that post

Tax the rich more?

For some years now we've had some seriously wealthy people telling the public that their group is not taxed enough.

and response from people like you? Let them individually pay more (with a stupid laugh track). Bu the issue is about class, tax brackets etc and not about individuals.

 

[mikegriffith1]

really?

I mean, really?

inject sarcasm
mikegriffith1
Q: How did Bush try to reform Social Security?

Bush outlined a major initiative to reform Social Security which included partial privatization of the system, personal Social Security accounts, and options to permit Americans to divert a portion of their Social Security tax (FICA) into secured investments.

We all know (well some of at least), why - why Social Security exists. What was America like before Social Security came into existence - with conservatives and the GOP fighting against it every step of the way. President George W. Bush designated fundamental Social Security reform as his top domestic priority. Like Trump in 2024, In 2004, "W." thought he had a mandate.

Note, in 2004, G. W. Bush had an even better win than Trump got 2024. Bush got 50.7% of the popular vote. Trump? 49.8% of the popular vote.


Why the 2005 Social Security Initiative Failed, and What it Means for the Future
William A. Galston
September 21, 2007

Following his successful 2004 reelection campaign, President George W. Bush designated fundamental Social Security reform as his top domestic priority.

...

Having invested so much political capital in this issue, President Bush embarked on the first of what proved to be a long series of tours crammed with events at which he pitched his plan to the people. It soon became apparent that it would be a tough sell. Within weeks, observers noticed that the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined. According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush’s handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent–between his State of the Union address and June.

By early summer the initiative was on life support, with congressional Democrats uniformly opposed...

Bullseye. If Bush's SS reform bill had passed, SS would be in far better shape than it is today, and we would not be staring down the barrel of SS revenues not covering benefits in less than 10 years.

 

[Zincwarrior]

1) The wealthy get back much less than average workers in comparison to average workers, and

2) I said to raise the cap to $200,000, so they WILL be paying more. I noticed you did not quote that part of my post, which is a deceitful way to enable you to lie. (Such a liberal.)

P.S. When SS was instituted, people only lived a few years past 65. Now they are living into their late 80s and early 90s - or beyond. The program wasn’t set up to pay out for 30 years.

But its ok if Boomers retire at 65.

#youarefullofshit

 

[Dante]

Bullseye. If Bush's SS reform bill had passed, SS would be in far better shape than it is today, and we would not be staring down the barrel of SS revenues not covering benefits in less than 10 years.

again with opinion masquerading as fact

and your hysteria and faux concern, maybe even worse uninformed concerns...

Since we were very young we have heard about the dire consequences of not reforming Social Security. What is ignored y partisan shills like you is -- it has been addressed and reformed. Incrementally.

No one has a plan that would not be affected by some future known unknown like economic changes worldwide.

There is no magic bullet.

What we are seeing now is:



Republicans Once Again Trying To Sabotage Social Security Programs Desperately Needed By The Elderly, The Poor and The Disabled - All in the Guise of Reform

 

[Lisa558]

But its ok if Boomers retire at 65.

#youarefullofshit

1) You are totally dishonest, You quoted out the part of my post that said the SS cap should be raised in order to LIE and say I don’t want the wealthy to pay more. YOU are the lying piece of shit.

2) And now you lie again. The baby boomers are now closing in at 66.5 to 67. EARLIER boomers still had 65, but that’s in the past.

3) You are just a typical lib: alter your opponents post in order to make a false claim, and put the ENTIRE burden on solving SS on the “wealthy” whom you hate.

4) As I said, age 65 was set when seniors lived only a few years past that. It was never intended to finance 30 years of retirement.

 

[Dante]

But its ok if Boomers retire at 65.

#youarefullofshit

thank you

 

[mikegriffith1]

again with opinion masquerading as fact

I bet you don't even know anything about Bush's SS proposal. If you did, you'd know that SS would be in far better shape than it is now if the proposal had been passed.

and your hysteria and faux concern, maybe even worse uninformed concerns...

Ah, here we go with the polemic. "Faux concern"??! Hey, partner, the SSA itself is warning us that in just 10 years SS revenue will only cover 75% of scheduled benefits. What will liberal shills like you say when that happens? It's not "faux concern," but math and sanity, which you apparently choose to ignore.

Since we were very young we have heard about the dire consequences of not reforming Social Security. What is ignored y partisan shills like you is -- it has been addressed and reformed. Incrementally.

Uh, you're the partisan shill. Oh, it's been "addressed and reformed incrementally," hey? Well, again, in just 10 years, SS revenue won't cover 25% of scheduled benefits. So whatever has been done has not been enough.

No one has a plan that would not be affected by some future known unknown like economic changes worldwide.

There is no magic bullet.

Blah, blah, blah. Just keep your head buried in the sand and keep smearing those who are offering valid, sane reforms that would keep SS solvent for the next two generations.

What we are seeing now is:

Republicans Once Again Trying To Sabotage Social Security Programs Desperately Needed By The Elderly, The Poor and The Disabled - All in the Guise of Reform

Uh-huh. Typical liberal demagoguery and deception in response to sane, rational, badly needed SS reform proposals, proposals that are partly modeled after successful state-level pension programs.

 

[Zincwarrior]

2) And now you lie again. The baby boomers are now closing in at 66.5 to 67. EARLIER boomers still had 65, but that’s in the past.

Boomers are already retiring. You're just fucking the follow up generations AGAIN while the wealthy again get off scot free.

 

[Lisa558]

Boomers are already retiring. You're just fucking the follow up generations AGAIN while the wealthy again get off scot free.

OMG. What a brainwashed libtard. The wealthy are hardly getting off Scot-free.

And again…..you are such a bullshit artist. I SAID to raise the cap on the wealthy to $200,000. They will be paying on even more. So how is that getting away Scot-free?

You need to grow up, son, and apply some logic. The answer to every problem is NOT “make the rich pay more” and ask nothing of anyone else.

Now you are just too much of a liar to continue this. And to think you were once a mod?