Gang of Six looking at Social Security changes

[JimH52]

Sen. Mark Warner: 'Gang Of Six' Looking At Social Security Changes, Not Raising Tax Rates

Meet Mark Warner, future President of the United States....and my Senator! A self made Millionaire who can surely help put this country on the right road.

 

[Oddball]

How much was the author of that dreck paid?

 

[waltky]

Social Security goin' broke faster than first thought...

Social Security and Medicare to run short sooner than expected
May 13, 2011: The trust funds of Social Security and Medicare -- the country's two biggest entitlement programs -- will run dry earlier than expected, according a report Friday from the programs' trustees.

After expiration, the programs will only be taking in enough money to pay a portion of promised benefits to retirees. Social Security will have sufficient resources to pay 100% of promised benefits through 2036, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said.

That's one year earlier than predicted in August 2010. Medicare's hospital insurance program, meanwhile, should be able to pay full benefits through 2024. That is five years earlier than the trustees predicted last year, but later than had been projected before Congress passed the new health reform law.

The accelerated date of trust fund expiration is due to changes in economic assumptions, Geithner said in a statement. Geithner urged policymakers to take steps to shore up Social Security and Medicare, saying that delay will only make future solutions more difficult.

"We should not wait for the trust funds to be exhausted to make the reforms necessary to protect our current and future retirees," he said. "Larger, more difficult adjustments will be necessary if we delay reform. And making reforms soon that are phased in over time would help reduce uncertainty about future retirement benefits."

Source

 

[KissMy]

Social Security goin' broke faster than first thought...

Social Security and Medicare to run short sooner than expected
May 13, 2011: The trust funds of Social Security and Medicare -- the country's two biggest entitlement programs -- will run dry earlier than expected, according a report Friday from the programs' trustees.

After expiration, the programs will only be taking in enough money to pay a portion of promised benefits to retirees. Social Security will have sufficient resources to pay 100% of promised benefits through 2036, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said.

That's one year earlier than predicted in August 2010. Medicare's hospital insurance program, meanwhile, should be able to pay full benefits through 2024. That is five years earlier than the trustees predicted last year, but later than had been projected before Congress passed the new health reform law.

The accelerated date of trust fund expiration is due to changes in economic assumptions, Geithner said in a statement. Geithner urged policymakers to take steps to shore up Social Security and Medicare, saying that delay will only make future solutions more difficult.

"We should not wait for the trust funds to be exhausted to make the reforms necessary to protect our current and future retirees," he said. "Larger, more difficult adjustments will be necessary if we delay reform. And making reforms soon that are phased in over time would help reduce uncertainty about future retirement benefits."

Source

Once Obamacares cuts to Medicare kills of enough of the Social Security & Medicare beneficiaries, things will be back on track.

 

[waltky]

Granny says she gonna buy her a haicienda when she retires...

Mexico Attracts US Retirees Despite Crime Wave
June 02, 2011 - Some 40,000 people have been killed in Mexico over the past five years as the Latin American country's police and military battle powerful drug cartels that are also fighting with each other over smuggling routes. In spite of the dire headlines, hundreds of thousands of US citizens vacation in Mexico every year and many of them, especially those who are retired, have opted to buy property and live there. The warm weather and the lower cost of living are big draws.

News from Mexico these days tends to be bad. Shootouts and grisly murders dominate media reports. But some Americans are moving to Mexico looking for peace and relaxation. Michael Baldwin and Stephanie Villareal spoke to VOA via Skype from their home near the tip of Mexico's Baja peninsula. “We have been here almost a year now. We came from Houston, Texas. We came down temporarily last summer and made the decision to make it permanent and we actually drove from Houston to Cabo San Lucas,” Baldwin said.

Baldwin says they love the natural beauty and mild climate and that their improved lifestyle has also saved them money. “Houston versus Cabo, our expenses have been reduced by about 30 percent,” Baldwin said. Villareal says they also enjoy interacting with local people in a place where they have noticed very little crime. “We have lots of friends, they are very welcoming and that is one of our favorite parts of living here is the people,” Villareal said. While resort areas have generally remained peaceful. other parts of Mexico have turned into war zones. The U.S. State Department notes violent incidents in 14 of Mexico's 31 states.

But Rodolfo Lopez-Negrete, chief operating officer of Mexico's Tourism Board, says the report does not take into account the vast areas untouched by major crime. “Out of the 2,500 municipalities we have in Mexico, the equivalent of your counties in America, 80 of those have witnessed episodes of violence,” Lopez-Negrete said. He says U.S. citizens living in the principal resort areas provide their own vote of confidence. "In the major time-share developments, the major fractional developments or full ownership, more than half of those purchases are from Americans," Lopez-Negrete said.

Here in Houston, Chris Hill works with the Mexico Real Estate Coalition to help promote property purchases south of the border. He says activity has slowed in the past few years, partly because of the recession, but also because of news reports about violence that is generally not near tourist zones. “All of these crime-related stories that we are hearing, drug-related, they have very little impact on a tourist or someone going to live in Mexico," Hill said.

MORE

 

[Mad Scientist]

Someone in the comment section nails it:

PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIAL SECURITY: Social security really amounts to a compulsory savings program of OUR money from OUR paychecks for OUR retirement*. Unfortunately, instead of keeping these funds safeguarded, collecting interest our politicians have put the entire SS surplus into the general fund and spent it (they stole it!).Now that there is more money going out to retirees and less dollars coming in due to the economy (fewer payrolls, therefore less SS payroll taxes) this ponzi scheme is collapsing faster than a Madoff scam and that is why our politicians are in a hurry to slash (reform) SS because now they would have to borrow the funds and pay interest on the new debt as well. GET IT?

 

[Immanuel]

This is really kind of frightening. My first thought when I read the headline was that they were talking about something like a plan to privatize Social Security which I believe would be a good thing.

But, as I read it, I realized they weren't saying what kind of changes they meant. Then I read this:

WARNER: Bob, I think you've got to look at both sides of the ledger. Long before I was in politics, I spent 20 years in business. I built companies. And you've got to look at the revenue side. You've got to look at the spending side.

We're looking at a ratio of about $3 in cuts for every additional dollar in revenues. And the revenues we're talking about literally are coming from lower rates, where we can lower our rates on individual and on corporate rates back to where they're much more competitive on a worldwide basis. But we're getting rid of a number of the tax expenditures.

And then it hit me... they aren't talking about improving Social Security for the taxpayer they are talking about one of two things a) increasing the age of retirement or b) decreasing the amount of monthly benefits. Make that three things c) both a and b.

That is not an improvement for the taxpayer that only makes the entire program more costly to individuals. How does having to wait until you are eighty-eight before you can begin collecting sound to you?

Immie

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't think that part in quotes is specific to SS, he's talking there abut lowering the debt and deficits. The SS changes mentioned were very vague, but I do think they're looking at both a and b that you mentioned, also raising the income ceiling for paying FICA from $108,600 and maybe also means testing SS benefit recipients.

Tell you what, if they could arrive at an agreement to fix SS, I think it would go a long way towards alleviating fears that these guys can cooperate without being under a very big gun.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't think that part in quotes is specific to SS, he's talking there abut lowering the debt and deficits. The SS changes mentioned were very vague, but I do think they're looking at both a and b that you mentioned, also raising the income ceiling for paying FICA from $108,600 and maybe also means testing SS benefit recipients.

Tell you what, if they could arrive at an agreement to fix SS, I think it would go a long way towards alleviating fears that these guys can cooperate without being under a very big gun.

In regards to the raising the FICA limit, I believe he specifically indicated they were not talking about raising taxes. That would fall in the category of raising taxes, wouldn't it?

Immie

 

[Trajan]

the gang of six DUE to ENTITLEMENTS now being off the table according to ;dick' durbin is defunct.

Obama is going to have to find another committee council whatever to do his thinking for him and provide cover for his lack of heft in this issue.

 

[Charles_Main]

Someone in the comment section nails it:

PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIAL SECURITY: Social security really amounts to a compulsory savings program of OUR money from OUR paychecks for OUR retirement*. Unfortunately, instead of keeping these funds safeguarded, collecting interest our politicians have put the entire SS surplus into the general fund and spent it (they stole it!).Now that there is more money going out to retirees and less dollars coming in due to the economy (fewer payrolls, therefore less SS payroll taxes) this ponzi scheme is collapsing faster than a Madoff scam and that is why our politicians are in a hurry to slash (reform) SS because now they would have to borrow the funds and pay interest on the new debt as well. GET IT?

They nailed part of the problem. However the Biggest problem with SS today is not only that it is used as a slush fund. It is that over half the people who collect are actually collection SS disability, or Survivor Benefits. And the Vast majority of those people will never work enough to pay in anywhere near what they get. SS was meant to a pay as you go savings program. It has become much much more, and that of course is where the sustainability part comes into play.

Not to mention that even people who do work all their lives and pay in the whole time. Are now living much longer and end up collecting more than they paid in. When SS was set up there were something like 26 People paying in, for every 1 collection. Today it is 2 to 1, and by 2020 it will be 1 to 1 or less.

So just like with Medicare. Doing nothing, is throwing granny over the cliff just as much as scraping the whole system and not replacing it would be.

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't think that part in quotes is specific to SS, he's talking there abut lowering the debt and deficits. The SS changes mentioned were very vague, but I do think they're looking at both a and b that you mentioned, also raising the income ceiling for paying FICA from $108,600 and maybe also means testing SS benefit recipients.

Tell you what, if they could arrive at an agreement to fix SS, I think it would go a long way towards alleviating fears that these guys can cooperate without being under a very big gun.

In regards to the raising the FICA limit, I believe he specifically indicated they were not talking about raising taxes. That would fall in the category of raising taxes, wouldn't it?

Immie

I thought he said they wouldn't raise tax rates, but are trying to reduce or eliminate tax expenditures and loopholes. These guys are pretty slippery when it comes to pinning them down on what they said. It may be that the repubs have taken the FICA ceiling option off the table as a tax hike. Or the dems did, cuz then Obama would be breaking his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on people making over $200k. IMHO, that ceiling oughta be tied to increases in inflation or wages, or some combination of the two.

 

[Wiseacre]

the gang of six DUE to ENTITLEMENTS now being off the table according to ;dick' durbin is defunct.

Obama is going to have to find another committee council whatever to do his thinking for him and provide cover for his lack of heft in this issue.

I heard that Tom Coburn pulled out, wasn't sure if the whole thing went down the tubes or not. Might be resurrected later to save face for somebody?

 

[The Rabbi]

the gang of six DUE to ENTITLEMENTS now being off the table according to ;dick' durbin is defunct.

Obama is going to have to find another committee council whatever to do his thinking for him and provide cover for his lack of heft in this issue.

I heard that Tom Coburn pulled out, wasn't sure if the whole thing went down the tubes or not. Might be resurrected later to save face for somebody?

The article is from April. It is out of date. Coburn quit because nothing productive was going to come from it because the Dums are beholden to the unions and other beneficiaries, thus not serious.


Mark Warner is a liberal millionaire and a pompous piece of shit.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't think that part in quotes is specific to SS, he's talking there abut lowering the debt and deficits. The SS changes mentioned were very vague, but I do think they're looking at both a and b that you mentioned, also raising the income ceiling for paying FICA from $108,600 and maybe also means testing SS benefit recipients.

Tell you what, if they could arrive at an agreement to fix SS, I think it would go a long way towards alleviating fears that these guys can cooperate without being under a very big gun.

In regards to the raising the FICA limit, I believe he specifically indicated they were not talking about raising taxes. That would fall in the category of raising taxes, wouldn't it?

Immie

I thought he said they wouldn't raise tax rates, but are trying to reduce or eliminate tax expenditures and loopholes. These guys are pretty slippery when it comes to pinning them down on what they said. It may be that the repubs have taken the FICA ceiling option off the table as a tax hike. Or the dems did, cuz then Obama would be breaking his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on people making over $200k. IMHO, that ceiling oughta be tied to increases in inflation or wages, or some combination of the two.

If I may correct two points that I think you have wrong:

1) I think Obama's campaign promise was that he would not raise taxes on families making UNDER $250k. Note: raising taxes on those people was the first thing he did in office when he raised the cigarette tax.

PolitiFact | The Obameter: No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Obama Signs Federal Cigarette Tax Hike

2) I think you mean the FICA ceiling, don't you? That is tied to inflation. The ceiling goes up pretty much annually.

Maximum Benefits and Contributions Limits for 2006 - 2011

See the line identified as "Income Subject to Social Security Tax"

Immie

 

[Wiseacre]

Immie, you're right, I meant under 200k/250k not over. And I've been misled somewhere about the SS tax ceiling, I thought it's been at $106,800 for a long time. mea culpa.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, you're right, I meant under 200k/250k not over. And I've been misled somewhere about the SS tax ceiling, I thought it's been at $106,800 for a long time. mea culpa.

No problem, and it appears that the limit has held steady for the last three years.

Immie

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SCHIEFFER: So that's where you would get the additional revenues, by eliminating deductions, not necessarily by raising taxes?

WARNER: We're not talking about raising taxes.

They can call it what they want – but increased revenues is a must to develop any viable plan.

 

[Immanuel]

SCHIEFFER: So that's where you would get the additional revenues, by eliminating deductions, not necessarily by raising taxes?

WARNER: We're not talking about raising taxes.

They can call it what they want – but increased revenues is a must to develop any viable plan.

Basically, I agree with you and am not opposed to tax increases, but quite frankly, I think it is more a spending problem than anything else. Congress must overcome the notion that simply because they get more tax revenues does not mean that they can also increase spending and worse yet, by more than the increase in revenues.

Immie

 

[Trajan]

SCHIEFFER: So that's where you would get the additional revenues, by eliminating deductions, not necessarily by raising taxes?

WARNER: We're not talking about raising taxes.

They can call it what they want – but increased revenues is a must to develop any viable plan.

Basically, I agree with you and am not opposed to tax increases, but quite frankly, I think it is more a spending problem than anything else. Congress must overcome the notion that simply because they get more tax revenues does not mean that they can also increase spending and worse yet, by more than the increase in revenues.

Immie

thats why they cannot fold on the debt ceiling. we need a balanced budget amend. with a 2/3's benchmark for tax increases and at the same time pull the plug on the bush tax cuts...I would go for that but, no amend. no sale.

and just a a palate cleaner- they will probably need to go further than the bush cuts, the 'middle class' will get teed up, thats were the money is, but good luck on that.

It will take obama stopping the uber partisan political bullshit and both making the same case at the same time politics aside, ( as to the economy tanking further with tax increases in the present economy, well, obama can answer for that ala the 5 trillion he spent) what I don't get is this can be sold IF the dems would pull their heads out of their asses, I do think that the reps would go for that, if not then a pox on their house too.