Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security

[hadit]

Lets say that the "senior vote" is up for grabs.
Which party wants to fix entitlements and lock down those reliable voters?
I'd rather be "woke" than "broke". <g>

And they would have to "attack" Social Security to make that happen. They would have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or both to keep the program solvent.

 

[hadit]

that Medicare is going to die Is AARP's number one myth...

It either dies, taxes are raised, or benefits are cut. Otherwise, it collapses.

 

[Nostra]

Joe Biden tried to destroy SS.

 

[Independent thinker]

Biden refused to name them, but here's the names of some of the loudest ones...



Do the USMB rightwing Republican-voters agree w/this attack on social security?

What's your position on this matter?

They are the ones trying to rescue these programs from insolvency while Democrats ignore the problem so that they will go bankrupt. Even now, as we speak, Democrats are refusing to talk about cutting expenses, which will lead to seniors not getting their social security checks in the near future.

 

[francoHFW]

It either dies, taxes are raised, or benefits are cut. Otherwise, it collapses.

Tax the rich again and invest in America and Americans again. People who aren't rich should not be taxed anymore that's for sure and I've had it with law and order ruining small town life....

 

[francoHFW]

Joe Biden tried to destroy SS.

By going along with Reagan reagan in the last Presidential honeymoon we've ever had?

 

[Nostra]

By going along with Reagan reagan in the last Presidential honeymoon we've ever had?

Reagan was President in 1995?

 

[francoHFW]

Reagan was President in 1995?

83 version. 1995 would have been Clinton bending over backwards signing GOP bills to try and get some compromise going. never happened with the obstructionists.

 

[80zephyr]

We EARNED and PAID FOR those benefits bucko. The government used the money and put up an IOU. Time to pay the fuck up.

There are not enough IOU's to cover the cost of SS. When SS was passed, there were 16 workers paying for one retiree. Today its 2 to 1. Not enough people paying , and too many taking out.

The program relied on an ever expanding population to fund the program, hence the ponzi scheme charge.

 

[Nostra]

83 version. 1995 would have been Clinton bending over backwards signing GOP bills to try and get some compromise going. never happened with the obstructionists.

 

[80zephyr]

True. SS was based on certain assumptions, which are adjusted from time to time.
The actuaries can still make it work by raising the retirement ages and the cap.

Just great. Raise the retirement age. AGAIN. Pay in for 50 years and die and get 2 months of benefits.

 

[kyzr]

There are not enough IOU's to cover the cost of SS. When SS was passed, there were 16 workers paying for one retiree. Today its 2 to 1. Not enough people paying , and too many taking out.
The program relied on an ever expanding population to fund the program, hence the ponzi scheme charge.

Worst case SS pays out only what it collects. We then get 80% of promised benefits.
If the cap is raised and people under 54 have 1-year added to the 62/67 ages that should "fix" SS well into the future.
Its NOT a ponzi scheme, it worked well for 80-years.

 

[kyzr]

Just great. Raise the retirement age. AGAIN. Pay in for 50 years and die and get 2 months of benefits.

People are living longer. About 4-years on average. Adding 1-year to collect longer isn't a bad deal.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Worst case SS pays out only what it collects. We then get 80% of promised benefits.
If the cap is raised and people under 54 have 1-year added to the 62/67 ages that should "fix" SS well into the future.
Its NOT a ponzi scheme, it worked well for 80-years.

Social Security never ripped anyone off, actually the reverse has happened.
But on to the largest Wall Street ponzi scheme.

Bernard Lawrence Madoff was an American fraudster and Wall Street financier who ran (likely for decades) the largest, possibly most devastating Ponzi scheme in history, defrauding thousands of investors out of about $64.8 billion.

A well-known Wall Street investment advisor, became world-famous for operating possibly the largest Ponzi scheme in history. When investigators for the FBI and the SEC finally uncovered the massive fraud in 2008, losses by Madoff’s investors were estimated at more than $50 billion over the course of nearly 20 years.

So, the little old cat lady invested, then she is sleeping on a park bench.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Worst case SS pays out only what it collects. We then get 80% of promised benefits.
If the cap is raised and people under 54 have 1-year added to the 62/67 ages that should "fix" SS well into the future.
Its NOT a ponzi scheme, it worked well for 80-years.

"Early or Late Retirement."

"In the case of early retirement, a benefit is reduced 5/9 of one percent for each month before normal retirement age, up to 36 months. If the number of months exceeds 36, then the benefit is further reduced 5/12 of one percent per month."

5/9 of 1 percent is 0.5556%. Times 12 = 6.6672%. Butting that in context the average SS benefits is $2,484 in 2022. If the full retirement age is raised to 67, and someone retires at 66 instead, the their benefit (if they received the average) would be reduced to $165.61 to $2,318.39.

Not that much of a difference. The savings kicks in if people actually wait to 67 or just decide to take a small percentage hit and still retire at 66.

Especially for those with multiple revenue streams where SS is only part of the retirement budget. For myself I'll have 4 revenue streams in retirement and SS will only be one. I'm not working another year for an extra $150-$175 a month.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

People are living longer. About 4-years on average. Adding 1-year to collect longer isn't a bad deal.

Except there isn't a requirement to wait the extra year.

WW

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Social Security never ripped anyone off, actually the reverse has happened.

The fact of the matter is if you die before your retirement age (whatever age you decide) then all that money you and your employers contributed to the plan is lost forever. Your family won't see one red cent of it unless you have dependents or are married.

 

[Andylusion]

Of the two SS is by far the easiest to fix. Raise the cap on taxable income to $1M from the current $148K. Problem solved. One step further would be to means test for benefits.

No that wouldn't solve anything, unless you want to be evil.
Social Security has a cap on the taxable income, because it also has a cap on the maximum payout.
If you increase the taxable income, you MUST also increase the max Social Security payout. That would mean that Social Security expenses would dramatically increase, with the increased revenue.
So it wouldn't fix anything.
Unless you plan to have people pay more into a "pension" and yet not get any more benefits paid out.
Would you tolerate that? If your insurance company said that for no other reason than because you had more money that other people, that your insurance premiums would increase by.... 10 fold.... and yet your insurance policies would not pay out one penny more in benefits, would that work for you?
Or would you have a huge problem with that?
You would have a huge problem with that wouldn't you? And you'd start having a complete fit, until your benefits were increased to match your increased premiums.
Well... welcome to Democracy baby. You can't just screw over a huge portion of the public, and not have voters elect anyone who will fix that.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The fact of the matter is if you die before your retirement age (whatever age you decide) then all that money you and your employers contributed to the plan is lost forever. Your family won't see one red cent of it unless you have dependents or are married.

So, what happens if the market crashes/ponzi scheme?
Only person who get ANY $$$, is Wall Street.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, what happens if the market crashes/ponzi scheme?
Only person who get ANY $$$, is Wall Street.

The market will always rebound. It's in a slump the last year but again, it will come back.

If you look at how insurance companies operate and are successful, they take your premium money and make investments. The profits made from those investments offsets many of the claims.

Our government on the other hand doesn't make very good investments with our SS money. It earns like 1% or something like that. So basically they take your money and stuff it in between mattresses somewhere.

Now when it comes time to pay, they have just about the same money as they put in those mattresses. That's why insurance companies are successful and our government is a failure.