Democrats Are Once Again Sabotaging Desperately Needed Social Security Reform

[struth]

The Pentagon never is in danger of going broke so why would Social Security?

Becsuse the DoD sends a budget request into Congress every year and Congress budgets for it

SS does not

 

[WorldWatcher]

Becsuse the DoD sends a budget request into Congress every year and Congress budgets for it

SS does not

Sure they do. Not for benefits, but they do request an administratrive budget to cover - well - administration. That would include employees, IT, infrastructure, etc.

WW
.
.

Budget Estimates | SSA

Our administrative budget provides resources to administer Social Security and SSI programs as well as certain aspects of the Medicare program. It funds salaries and benefits for Federal SSA employees and for State employees at disability determination services (DDS) offices who make disability...

www.ssa.gov

 

[Dante]

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.



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.


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.


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.


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.

You obviously Hit and Run post. Dante won't waste much time anymore with serious replies to you. You've revealed yourself to be a worthless opponent in any debate or discussion..


Dante has forgotten more than you're capable of learning.

and Bush's proposal is in one of the posts you are commenting/replying to.

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...

 

[Dante]

Becsuse the DoD sends a budget request into Congress every year and Congress budgets for it

SS does not

Fair warning: Don't think too hard about this. Like this:

"Social Security is a large part of the federal budget, but it's technically "off-budget". The Social Security Administration's (SSA) administrative budget is subject to the federal budget process." -- The administrative budget. Get it? No? Don't worry. We don't want you to hurt yourself.

Technically, you are a moronic loon

 

[struth]

Fair warning: Don't think too hard about this. Like this:

"Social Security is a large part of the federal budget, but it's technically "off-budget". The Social Security Administration's (SSA) administrative budget is subject to the federal budget process." -- The administrative budget. Get it? No? Don't worry. We don't want you to hurt yourself.

Technically, you are a moronic loon

Yes the SSA sends a budget to budget for its office and processing SS payments

 

[struth]

Sure they do. Not for benefits, but they do request an administratrive budget to cover - well - administration. That would include employees, IT, infrastructure, etc.

WW
.
.

Budget Estimates | SSA

Our administrative budget provides resources to administer Social Security and SSI programs as well as certain aspects of the Medicare program. It funds salaries and benefits for Federal SSA employees and for State employees at disability determination services (DDS) offices who make disability...

www.ssa.gov

Yes that’s correct but not for payments which is where it’s going broke

 

[Dante]

Yes the SSA sends a budget to budget for its office and processing SS payments

Okay.

You paid attention in class.

We'll be testing you on this subject later

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

MG talks about GOP promises regarding SS. cuts

They made promises about Roe.

How’d that work out?

Raise the ******* payroll cap and KEEP YOUR GRUBBY HANDS OFF MY RETIREMENT

Why is it leftards always want to take other peoples money and NEVER want to hold accountable those who destroyed and will continue to destroy SS and Medicare?

 

[Dante]

Research Notes & Special Studies by the Historian's Office​

Research Note #20:
The Social Security Trust Funds and the Federal Budget

THE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES

THE FINANCING PROCEDURES

"Off-Budget"-

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings-

Summary-


So, to sum up:


1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.


Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

 

[Lesh]

And the attack on Social Security continues

Smash the cap and keep your grubby hands off my retirement

 

[mikegriffith1]

George W. Bush's 2005 SS reform plan was a sensible, sane, responsible proposal. But, Democrats demagogued it and lied about it, falsely telling SS recipients their benefits would be cut, when in fact the proposal specifically did not touch current recipients and only applied to people aged 55 and under.

Bush's proposal included a modest, gradual benefit cut of 6% to 11%, depending on income. It would have stopped or markedly reduced increases in benefits for high-income earners but would have allowed low-income and middle-income earners' benefits to rise at or above the rate of inflation--IOW, a type of means test, just as we have for nearly all other benefit programs. Your taxes help pay for food stamps, for example, but you can't get food stamps if your income is above a certain level. The same principle should apply to SS. If you have a comfy or affluent private retirement income, you should either get a greatly reduced SS benefit or no benefit at all.

Bush's plan would have also given people aged 55 and under the option to either remain in the traditional SS system or to have 1/3--yes, just 1/3--of their SS contributions invested in a conservative mix of bond and stock funds, just as many state retirement funds do. The investment account would still have been within the Social Security program, and the investment option and the traditional portion of SS would have remained administered by the government.

Younger workers and those with higher lifetime earnings would have benefitted the most from the investment option. Younger workers would have been able to contribute to their investment account throughout their careers and would have had higher contributions as a result of continued wage growth. Higher earners would have benefitted from being able to accrue larger account balances as the dollar cap on contributions increased. Meanwhile, this would have greatly lessened the burden on the SS system.

But this was all flushed down the toilet because Democrats lied through their teeth about it and convinced many SS recipients that their benefits would be cut.

 

[Lesh]

George W. Bush's 2005 SS reform plan was a sensible, sane, responsible proposal. But, Democrats demagogued it and lied about it, falsely telling SS recipients their benefits would be cut, when in fact the proposal specifically did not touch current recipients and only applied to people aged 55 and under.

Bush's proposal included a modest, gradual benefit cut of 6% to 11%, depending on income. It would have stopped or markedly reduced increases in benefits for high-income earners but would have allowed low-income and middle-income earners' benefits to rise at or above the rate of inflation--IOW, a type of means test, just as we have for nearly all other benefit programs. Your taxes help pay for food stamps, for example, but you can't get food stamps if your income is above a certain level. The same principle should apply to SS. If you have a comfy or affluent private retirement income, you should either get a greatly reduced SS benefit or no benefit at all.

Bush's plan would have also given people aged 55 and under the option to either remain in the traditional SS system or to have 1/3--yes, just 1/3--of their SS contributions invested in a conservative mix of bond and stock funds, just as many state retirement funds do. The investment account would still have been within the Social Security program, and the investment option and the traditional portion of SS would have remained administered by the government.

Younger workers and those with higher lifetime earnings would have benefitted the most from the investment option. Younger workers would have been able to contribute to their investment account throughout their careers and would have had higher contributions as a result of continued wage growth. Higher earners would have benefitted from being able to accrue larger account balances as the dollar cap on contributions increased. Meanwhile, this would have greatly lessened the burden on the SS system.

But this was all flushed down the toilet because Democrats lied through their teeth about it and convinced many SS recipients that their benefits would be cut.

Bush’s SS “fix” would have made ME get 10% less on benefits .

Yeah, it’s always younger prospective retirees that get targeted but sooner or later you realize that’s YOU

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush’s SS “fix” would have made ME get 10% less on benefits .

Yeah, it’s always younger prospective retirees that get targeted but sooner or later you realize that’s YOU

Bush’s SS “fix” would have made ME get 10% less on benefits .

When did you start collecting?
When would your benefits have been reduced by 10%?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Bush’s SS “fix” would have made ME get 10% less on benefits.

Boo-hoo. That means you'd be getting 90% of your current benefits. And, in exchange, the SS system would be in a much better situation today if Bush's plan had been adopted. Do you just not understand the English of "in 10 years SS revenue will only cover 75% of scheduled benefits"? Do you just not understand that?

We're not gonna fix that looming shortfall and put the system on a viable long-term footing by simply jacking up taxes on the rich, as any number of studies have proved.

Yeah, it’s always younger prospective retirees that get targeted but sooner or later you realize that’s YOU

What a mindset. Yes, SS reform plans naturally focus on those who are not yet receiving SS benefits, since cutting benefits for current recipients would create a hardship for most of them, which no one wants to do. But people like you won't even support reducing benefits for SS recipients who already have private retirement incomes that are over $80,000 per year, which is just insane. I guess we should let those folks get food stamps too, right?

It's people like you who are the reason we are staring at such a huge SS shortall in just 10 years.

 

[Lesh]

Bush’s SS “fix” would have made ME get 10% less on benefits .

When did you start collecting?
When would your benefits have been reduced by 10%?

I was younger than 55 when Bush proposed that DOPE. So that 10% cut would have hit ME when I retired three years ago

 

[bendog]

W was a ******* disaster in every respect, and I voted for him in 2000. Instead of the tax cut no one making less than 250K gave a rat's ass about, he could have established private index accounts for every worker, and not touched ss.

 

[WorldWatcher]

W was a ******* disaster in every respect, and I voted for him in 2000. Instead of the tax cut no one making less than 250K gave a rat's ass about, he could have established private index accounts for every worker, and not touched ss.

In 2000 people already had access to private indexed accounts. They could establish them with after tax money and pay income tax on dividends or establish them as tax deferred account to reduced current taxes and delay taxes into retirement (where it was assumed the retiree would be in a lower tax bracket).

WW

 

[bendog]

In 2000 people already had access to private indexed accounts. They could establish them with after tax money and pay income tax on dividends or establish them as tax deferred account to reduced current taxes and delay taxes into retirement (where it was assumed the retiree would be in a lower tax bracket).

WW

yeah, but not with fica dollars, which was the issue in 2000

 

[WorldWatcher]

yeah, but not with fica dollars, which was the issue in 2000

Correct, they did have access trough.

One of Bush's big problems was how to pay for SS benefits going forward while taking money out of SS for deposit in private accounts and having a transition plan for different age groups needing different amounts of transitions.

WW

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was younger than 55 when Bush proposed that DOPE. So that 10% cut would have hit ME when I retired three years ago

What 10% cut?