GOP plans for Social Security

[Mac1958]

I would be very interested to know how people would feel about Social Security if they spent a year or so volunteering for the low-income elderly.

Sit with them, talk with them, cry with them, hold their hand, hear their personal stories. Change their sheets. Rub their feet.

They're remarkable people, walking history books, so interesting.

My guess is that, while some would remain indifferent, many others would walk away with a fresh set of eyes.
.

A fresh appreciation for the elderly does not create cash. All the sympathy is the world will not pay a utility bill or put food on the table.

What sympathy might do, however, is open minds to the possibility that paying a few dollars more in taxes to support people like that really isn't all that big a deal.
.

 

[irosie91]

There are more people taking out than putting in. What do you suggest we do as a solution?

Raise taxes on the rich.

Of course. Rob Peter to pay Paul.

It's been working for decades now, and quite popular. The GOP clearly learned nothing from their disastrous six years of unified power under the cross-eyed war monkey boy Bush. It's going to be more assaults on social programs and wars in the middle east.

Where are we going to goto war in the middle east? Obama has already got us at War in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan

Under what rock have you been lying comatose for the past 30 years? Obama did not invent the tumult in Syria, Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan. nor did Bush.

 

[whitehall]

The (MSN) editorial falls into the category of "fake news" offered by the crooked media and designed to frighten Americans. The Bill in question isn't even finished and has not been submitted. Everything in the editorial is subjective and intentionally critical.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I would be very interested to know how people would feel about Social Security if they spent a year or so volunteering for the low-income elderly.

Sit with them, talk with them, cry with them, hold their hand, hear their personal stories. Change their sheets. Rub their feet.

They're remarkable people, walking history books, so interesting.

My guess is that, while some would remain indifferent, many others would walk away with a fresh set of eyes.
.

A fresh appreciation for the elderly does not create cash. All the sympathy is the world will not pay a utility bill or put food on the table.

What sympathy might do, however, is open minds to the possibility that paying a few dollars more in taxes to support people like that really isn't all that big a deal.
.

Paying a few dollars more solves nothing. You give congress more they spend more. It's time to live within our budget. YOU should not have to support ME because I planned poorly.

 

[Mac1958]

I would be very interested to know how people would feel about Social Security if they spent a year or so volunteering for the low-income elderly.

Sit with them, talk with them, cry with them, hold their hand, hear their personal stories. Change their sheets. Rub their feet.

They're remarkable people, walking history books, so interesting.

My guess is that, while some would remain indifferent, many others would walk away with a fresh set of eyes.
.

I'm kind of curious about you in this regard. I don't always agree with you, but you seem to be someone who actually thinks about these issues, but this is nothing but a pure call to emotionalism with a disregard for some facts.

If I am broke, as in: Bank account is zero, pockets are empty, with only cat food in the cupboard.....How will spending time with the elderly improve that situation? I could want to help them until the cows come home, but in the end, I have nothing to help them with.

We are fast approaching that with Social Security. All the compassion in the world is not going to change the fact that SS has been mismanaged and will not survive unless something is done about it.

We are approaching a precipice in which the system collapses and those whose very lives depend upon these monies will be suddenly, and likely without warning, cut off from any means of income. Or, we can start making tweaks now, and work on saving it.

I'm not saying that helping the elderly will help you directly. Well, financially, anyway. My point is that it's easier to cut Social Security benefits when we don't think about the people being affected.

"Well, they should have thought about this when they were working" is one I hear often. Okay, sure. But many of them have had bad luck, or bad health, or have simply lacked the capacity to create retirement income above SS, or some lousy combination therein.

We could raise the retirement age, because Social Security was never meant to last 40, 50 years. But we could also eliminate the payroll cap (around $119,000) and, heaven forbid, raise the tax a point or two. I'd like to see what that would look like before we start cutting benefits.

Emotionalism? Yeah, okay, guilty. My quality of life is a bit better knowing that fellow Americans aren't suffering because I refused to pay a few bucks more into the SS system. That's worth something to me.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Why would we want to destroy social security? 90% of us will need it some day.

Because many have been conditioned to say "no" to everything. If someone suffers, that's the way it goes.
.

 

[WillReadmore]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Social Security is headed for insolvency. I realize you don't care because you're a greedy Baby Boomer who intends to leach off of my generation leaving us with nothing when we get to be your age, but most people would prefer the system be saved as opposed to crashing and burning.

Yes - letting it crash and burn would be hugely irresponsible.

Luckily enough, there are a number of ways to

The (MSN) editorial falls into the category of "fake news" offered by the crooked media and designed to frighten Americans. The Bill in question isn't even finished and has not been submitted. Everything in the editorial is subjective and intentionally critical.

It clearly shows a direction.

Waiting for a bill to object to this direction makes no sense. It needs to be stopped right now.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS. Here's another take on the bill:

The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 ensures Social Security will be there when Americans need it by:

• Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
• Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
• Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
• Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
• Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
• Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
• Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
• Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.

Sam Johnson Unveils Plan to Permanently Save Social Security

 

[WillReadmore]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS. Here's another take on the bill:

The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 ensures Social Security will be there when Americans need it by:

• Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
• Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
• Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
• Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
• Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
• Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
• Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
• Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.

Sam Johnson Unveils Plan to Permanently Save Social Security

"Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS."

Nonsense. Progressives have consistently defended SS against the destruction that the right has proposed from time to time.

Remember that progressives have been part of constructive changes made with the purpose of keeping the system solvent, even when they have resulted in lower benefits.

Let's keep this on the up and up here.

At some point, changes will probably need to be made, but there are LOTS of ways to improve solvency while keeping the system intact as it is.

Plus, we have YEARS to do that.

 

[miketx]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Social Security is headed for insolvency. I realize you don't care because you're a greedy Baby Boomer who intends to leach off of my generation leaving us with nothing when we get to be your age, but most people would prefer the system be saved as opposed to crashing and burning.

Fine, do what you want to social security. Give my fucking money back, because if you cocksuckers take the old peoples money they have paid in all their lives, you pieces of shit will have a blood bath.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There are more people taking out than putting in. What do you suggest we do as a solution?

Raise taxes on the rich.

Sure, as long as we raise taxes on you too.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Social Security is headed for insolvency. I realize you don't care because you're a greedy Baby Boomer who intends to leach off of my generation leaving us with nothing when we get to be your age, but most people would prefer the system be saved as opposed to crashing and burning.

Fine, do what you want to social security. Give my fucking money back, because if you cocksuckers take the old peoples money they have paid in all their lives, you pieces of shit will have a blood bath.

Nobody is taking their money, dipshit. It's you assclowns who are taking my money and my son's future money because as it's always been with the Baby Boomers, it's all about you, you, you.

 

[yiostheoy]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Like I said, the GOP will name it "saving social security" but it will only be a payroll tax on the non-rich.

Question is whether Chuck Schumer will allow it or will filibuster it?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Like I said, the GOP will name it "saving social security" but it will only be a payroll tax on the non-rich.

Question is whether Chuck Schumer will allow it or will filibuster it?

Well, seeing as how everyone draws from it everyone should pay the higher payroll tax to keep it funded, if that's the ultimately solution. That is the only fair way to implement it.

How about they kill Social Security Disability? So many people abuse that it's ridiculous and getting rid of that would help keep the program solvent for it's original intended use.

 

[velvtacheeze]

There are more people taking out than putting in. What do you suggest we do as a solution?

Raise taxes on the rich.

Of course. Rob Peter to pay Paul.

It's been working for decades now, and quite popular. The GOP clearly learned nothing from their disastrous six years of unified power under the cross-eyed war monkey boy Bush. It's going to be more assaults on social programs and wars in the middle east.

Where are we going to goto war in the middle east? Obama has already got us at War in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan

It will go back up to Bush era levels of involvement, and include Iran too. The Bush era War Mongers are back in power. It won't end well.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS. Here's another take on the bill:

The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 ensures Social Security will be there when Americans need it by:

• Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
• Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
• Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
• Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
• Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
• Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
• Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
• Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.

Sam Johnson Unveils Plan to Permanently Save Social Security

"Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS."

Nonsense. Progressives have consistently defended SS against the destruction that the right has proposed from time to time.

Remember that progressives have been part of constructive changes made with the purpose of keeping the system solvent, even when they have resulted in lower benefits.

Let's keep this on the up and up here.

At some point, changes will probably need to be made, but there are LOTS of ways to improve solvency while keeping the system intact as it is.

Plus, we have YEARS to do that.

The Democrats have only one way to keep SS solvent, raise taxes, and while SS will not become insolvent until the 2030's, the longer you wait to raise taxes, the higher the tax increase will have be.

Johnson's bill, which you have apparently dismissed on partisan ideological grounds without examining it, would increase benefits for the poorest retirees and use means testing to reduce benefits for wealthier retirees and eliminate the SS tax on benefits collected on SS benefits for those retirees who still have to work while collecting them, which would further benefit poorer recipients. It would essentially begin to move SS from being a social insurance program to being a welfare program, which would make it sustainable for many more years without a tax increase.

 

[WillReadmore]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS. Here's another take on the bill:

The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 ensures Social Security will be there when Americans need it by:

• Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
• Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
• Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
• Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
• Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
• Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
• Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
• Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.

Sam Johnson Unveils Plan to Permanently Save Social Security

"Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS."

Nonsense. Progressives have consistently defended SS against the destruction that the right has proposed from time to time.

Remember that progressives have been part of constructive changes made with the purpose of keeping the system solvent, even when they have resulted in lower benefits.

Let's keep this on the up and up here.

At some point, changes will probably need to be made, but there are LOTS of ways to improve solvency while keeping the system intact as it is.

Plus, we have YEARS to do that.

The Democrats have only one way to keep SS solvent, raise taxes, and while SS will not become insolvent until the 2030's, the longer you wait to raise taxes, the higher the tax increase will have be.

Johnson's bill, which you have apparently dismissed on partisan ideological grounds without examining it, would increase benefits for the poorest retirees and use means testing to reduce benefits for wealthier retirees and eliminate the SS tax on benefits collected on SS benefits for those retirees who still have to work while collecting them, which would further benefit poorer recipients. It would essentially begin to move SS from being a social insurance program to being a welfare program, which would make it sustainable for many more years without a tax increase.

Yes - Johnson wants to turn SS into a welfare program for the poorest while imposing enormous cuts on everyone else - making it no longer a retirement program in ANY way. Plus, subsequent to that there would be no reason not to cut it further, as we already have a welfare program - so SS could be pitched by the GOP as irrelevant.

This is a total scorched earth assault on SS, with a thin veneer for YOU to hide behind.

AND, I've already pointed out that your first paragraph is absolute bull. There are lots of ways to add support to SS. Everybody knows that. And, there have been points in the past where many of these have been used when there was honest bi-partisan cooperation on SS.

Beyond that, we have YEARS to figure this out, so nobody can view the Johnson thing as anything more than a shot across the bow - a promise to further put America's work force at serious financial peril as a way of benefiting the super wealthy.

 

[jknowgood]

Bed wetters insist this every time a republicrat is elected.

SS is in danger of becoming insolvent. I think that Trump's democrook advisers, like his Treasury secretary, will help find a way to fix it.

Of course the parrots will continue to chirp about Trump destroying it along with everything else he does.

I remember in the 90's Limbaugh joked about grandma might have to eat dog food and the next thing you know. Liberals were running around saying the republicans plan was to feed the poor dog food. There were even idiots back then. lol

 

[sartre play]

We need to fix things not destroy and start over. waste of time and money.

 

[Darkwind]

I would be very interested to know how people would feel about Social Security if they spent a year or so volunteering for the low-income elderly.

Sit with them, talk with them, cry with them, hold their hand, hear their personal stories. Change their sheets. Rub their feet.

They're remarkable people, walking history books, so interesting.

My guess is that, while some would remain indifferent, many others would walk away with a fresh set of eyes.
.

I'm kind of curious about you in this regard. I don't always agree with you, but you seem to be someone who actually thinks about these issues, but this is nothing but a pure call to emotionalism with a disregard for some facts.

If I am broke, as in: Bank account is zero, pockets are empty, with only cat food in the cupboard.....How will spending time with the elderly improve that situation? I could want to help them until the cows come home, but in the end, I have nothing to help them with.

We are fast approaching that with Social Security. All the compassion in the world is not going to change the fact that SS has been mismanaged and will not survive unless something is done about it.

We are approaching a precipice in which the system collapses and those whose very lives depend upon these monies will be suddenly, and likely without warning, cut off from any means of income. Or, we can start making tweaks now, and work on saving it.

I'm not saying that helping the elderly will help you directly. Well, financially, anyway. My point is that it's easier to cut Social Security benefits when we don't think about the people being affected.

"Well, they should have thought about this when they were working" is one I hear often. Okay, sure. But many of them have had bad luck, or bad health, or have simply lacked the capacity to create retirement income above SS, or some lousy combination therein.

We could raise the retirement age, because Social Security was never meant to last 40, 50 years. But we could also eliminate the payroll cap (around $119,000) and, heaven forbid, raise the tax a point or two. I'd like to see what that would look like before we start cutting benefits.

Emotionalism? Yeah, okay, guilty. My quality of life is a bit better knowing that fellow Americans aren't suffering because I refused to pay a few bucks more into the SS system. That's worth something to me.
.

I think you missed My point. It is not about helping Me directly. The truth is, SS has been mismanaged to the point that it has become a false hope to millions of people. The problem is, doing something to fix it is always met with cries that they are trying to starve old people, or that there is a lack of compassion.

So you tell Me. Which is more compassionate. Holding onto a failing system, where millions are going to be catastrophically harmed if we continue on with the status quo, or trying to even out the pain?

We have to be realistic here. The people who have kicked this can down the road so that they could keep their jobs can't be touched now. It is why they kicked it down the road. Hard choices have to be made and politicians are pussies.

As much as I dislike Trump, we now have a chance for some real reform. He doesn't care about the next election, is likely not going to run again anyway. So he won't be afraid of the hate rhetoric that will be spewed his way.

As for you suggestions. I can get behind some, but if its wrong to harm people on SS, you have to be intellectually honest and say it is wrong to harm others with higher taxes for a system that has not been fixed and will likely not help in the long term.

I've even heard some real assholes say they want to tax people wealth (no dollar amount is ever talked about) for SS and then deny them access to it. All under the deplorable banner of, "They won't feel it".