Will Democrats Let Us Save Social Security?

[Oddball]

Every time someone proposes a sane, rational, sensible reform of Social Security (SS) to make the system solvent for decades to come, Democrats demagogue it, lie about it, and scare seniors into believing they will be left to starve. Will Democrats ever stop lying about badly needed SS reforms before the system is insolvent?

According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.

We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:

-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.

-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.

-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.

In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.

Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.

Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.

Why would you save a Ponzi scheme, that gives a lower ROI than a basic index fund?

 

[JoeB131]

Trusting the Republicans to save social security is like trusting Colonel Sanders to save the Chickens.

 

[Mr Natural]

I wouldn’t worry too much.

Apart from handing out tax cuts to the billionaires, they don’t do much of anything at all.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Links Are Part of a Chain of Command

Only sheep believe that the rulers would give us a way to find out what they're doing behind the Netrix curtain.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I wouldn’t worry too much.

Apart from handing out tax cuts to the billionaires, they don’t do much of anything at all.

And you're another sad example of the blind partisan extremism that has prevented us from making badly needed changes to Social Security.

BTW, just FYI, who saved SS in the 1980s? Ronald Reagan. Reagan teamed up with Tip O'Neill to enact sensible SS reforms that put the program on a sound footing for the next three decades.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/04/02/bipartisan-reagan-oneill-social-security-deal-in-1983-showed-it-can-be-done

And in 2005, George W. Bush, of all people, proposed sensible set of SS reforms that would have made the program solvent well into the 2060s. But Democrats demagogued it and did not even offer an alternative bill.

 

[JoeB131]

And you're another sad example of the blind partisan extremism that has prevented making badly needed changes to Social Security.

BTW, just FYI, who saved SS in the 1980s? Ronald Reagan. Reagan teamed up with Tip O'Neill to enact sensible SS reforms that put the program on a sound footing for the next three decades.

You mean he raised taxes on working people, cut taxes for the rich, and demolished the middle class. Um, yeah, not really.

One of those "sensible" reforms was cutting payments to people like me who lost their parents and were still trying to work their way through college. Seriously, fuck Ronald Reagan. So my Dad paid into Social Security all his life after serving his country in WWII, died at 56, and his kids didn't see any of that money.

Seriously Fuck Reagan.

And in 2005, George W. Bush, of all people, proposed sensible set of SS reforms that would have made the program solvent well into the 2060s. But Democrats demagogued it and did not even offer an alternative bill.

He proposed letting Wall Street Loot the Social Security Fund, which even Republicans balked at. Then we found out that Wall Street had looted all our mortgages and 401Ks.

 

[Lesh]

Every time someone proposes a sane, rational, sensible reform of Social Security (SS) to make the system solvent for decades to come, Democrats demagogue it, lie about it, and scare seniors into believing they will be left to starve. Will Democrats ever stop lying about badly needed SS reforms before the system is insolvent?

According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.

We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:

-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.

-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.

-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.

In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.

Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.

Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.

Here comes the latest Republican attack on So Hal Securing.

Been watching this same shit for 40 years

Don’t let Republicans get their grubby hands on our retirement

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Democrats are giving SSI to non-citizens.
There are 7 billion people in the world.
Can we afford to support them all?

Social Security Benefits Eligibility for Non-Citizens, …​

Jul 10, 2020 · According to the Social Security Administration, non-citizens who are “lawfully in the United States and meet all requirements” can get benefits. These requirements include non-citizens who: Are permanent …

Exhibit 342,543 the democrat Party hates America

 

[22lcidw]

You mean he raised taxes on working people, cut taxes for the rich, and demolished the middle class. Um, yeah, not really.

One of those "sensible" reforms was cutting payments to people like me who lost their parents and were still trying to work their way through college. Seriously, fuck Ronald Reagan. So my Dad paid into Social Security all his life after serving his country in WWII, died at 56, and his kids didn't see any of that money.

Seriously Fuck Reagan.



He proposed letting Wall Street Loot the Social Security Fund, which even Republicans balked at. Then we found out that Wall Street had looted all our mortgages and 401Ks.

Most people paying into Social Security collect many times more than they paid in. Just on Social Security this is you as a Prog way of socialism. Now then we get to Medicare. And that can be many times more times many times more than what was paid in.

 

[JoeB131]

Most people paying into Social Security collect many times more than they paid in. Just on Social Security this is you as a Prog way of socialism. Now then we get to Medicare. And that can be many times more times many times more than what was paid in.

Well, I'm sure you're on a disability for the voices in your head... but the rest of us end up working until we are 65 or 67 or 70.

 

[22lcidw]

Well, I'm sure you're on a disability for the voices in your head... but the rest of us end up working until we are 65 or 67 or 70.

Actually, I have the voices in my head and do not collect a dime for disability. And I worked my life in employment that causes it with help from family growing up. There are many people who have experienced this. I worked in more dangerous situations because of employment with a door slightly opened for white guys in the early 1970's was more dangerous. The social agendas favored color and gender. Feminism was the greatest benefactor at that time.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, I have the voices in my head and do not collect a dime for disability. And I worked my life in employment that causes it with help from family growing up. There are many people who have experienced this. I worked in more dangerous situations because of employment with a door slightly opened for white guys in the early 1970's was more dangerous. The social agendas favored color and gender. Feminism was the greatest benefactor at that time.

So your job causes the voices in your head?

 

[Frankenstein]

Every time someone proposes a sane, rational, sensible reform of Social Security (SS) to make the system solvent for decades to come, Democrats demagogue it, lie about it, and scare seniors into believing they will be left to starve. Will Democrats ever stop lying about badly needed SS reforms before the system is insolvent?

According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.

We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:

-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.

-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.

-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.

In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.

Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.

Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.

No they will never stop lying as there father is the father of lies
44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

 

[forkup]

Oh, sheesh. Really? This yarn again? So you think we can make SS solvent just by once again raising taxes on the rich?

So once again your "solution" is to just tax, tax, tax, and tax again.

Because the currently promised levels are not sustainable!

How many more times do you want to raise the SS tax? We've raised the SS tax six times since 1972, yet we're still only years away from having a large SS deficit. Did you read the OP? By 2035, in just 11 years, SS taxes will only cover 75% of SS obligations.

How much more of a tax burden do you want to place on American companies, the same companies that you guys are always screaming at to hire more employees? Are you aware that people with an earned income of over $700K per year already pay 37% of their income just in federal taxes? You don't think that's enough?

Oh, sheesh. Really? This yarn again? So you think we can make SS solvent just by once again raising taxes on the rich?

Yes you can. The reason I know this is that other countries are capable of doing so.This while providing a level of Social Security that way surpasses anything you get in the US.

The reason I know this is because I'm from such a country. While my wife is American. So I've got knowledge of both systems.

Because the currently promised levels are not sustainable!

Because to you taxation is a punishment and not simply the way the government pays for services. If you refuse to gather enough funds you can't pay for stuff. It's not that it's unsustainable. It's that you refuse to pay for it.

Fun fact. During the Eisenhower administration the corporate tax rate was 91 percent. After deductions somewhere in the high fifties. Pretty sure that Ike was a Republican and that to a lot of the people on the right consider it a good age to have lived.

Reagan put it in your heads that the government should stay out of peoples lives and taxation is a punishment. This wealth gap. That you don't bother denying exists, is a direct result of that.

 

[Frankenstein]

Yes you can. The reason I know this is that other countries are capable of doing so.This while providing a level of Social Security that way surpasses anything you get in the US.

The reason I know this is because I'm from such a country. While my wife is American. So I've got knowledge of both systems.

Because to you taxation is a punishment and not simply the way the government pays for services.

Fun fact. During the Eisenhower administration the corporate tax rate was 91 percent. After deductions somewhere in the high fifties. Pretty sure that Ike was a Republican and that to a lot of the people on the right it was considered a good age to live.

Reagan put it in your heads that the government should stay out of peoples lives and taxation is a punishment. This wealth gap. That you don't bother denying exists, is a direct result of that.

Many other Countries? You mean socialist countries, take that with you when you leave, the issue is, the Rich politicians will always make a way to avoid it, and it gets passed to the middle class

 

[Crepitus]

Will Democrats Let Us Save Social Security?​

A whole buttload of you republicans are on record wanting to kill it. Where are you inventing this "save social security" crap from?

 

[Blaster]

Every time someone proposes a sane, rational, sensible reform of Social Security (SS) to make the system solvent for decades to come, Democrats demagogue it, lie about it, and scare seniors into believing they will be left to starve. Will Democrats ever stop lying about badly needed SS reforms before the system is insolvent?

According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.

We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:

-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.

-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.

-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.

In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.

Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.

Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.

Democrats like to scare seniors by lying about Social Security.

 

[forkup]

Many other Countries? You mean socialist countries, take that with you when you leave, the issue is, the Rich politicians will always make a way to avoid it, and it gets passed to the middle class

No,I mean Social Democracies. Still paying money and earn wages for most stuff. Just not for things that are essential.

Healthcare, education.

My tax rate would make your eyes water. On the other hand my standard of living doesn't drop below a certain level regardless of what happens. My kid can go to school and college without having to take on debt to do so. Paid leave. Paid sick days. Maternity and paternity leave. Free reeducation if god forbid you lose your job in any field you want to work, while getting a living wage, etc.etc.

By the way when I say "free" I mean I paid for it by my eye watering taxes.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You mean he raised taxes on working people, cut taxes for the rich, and demolished the middle class. Um, yeah, not really.

Not on this planet. Not in this reality. He cut taxes for everyone, not just the rich. And the middle class greatly expanded under Reagan. The net worth of families earning between $20K and $50K rose by 27%. Real GNP rose by 26%. He cut inflation from 13.5% to 4.1%. And on and on we could go.

The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

See also: The Truth About Tax Rates and The Politics of Class Warfare by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.

www.heritage.org

The Ten Causes of the Reagan Boom

With the exception of a brief lull at the beginning of the 1990s, the American economy has spent the last fifteen years undergoing dramatic growth. Hoover fellow Martin Anderson knows why.

www.hoover.org

One of those "sensible" reforms was cutting payments to people like me who lost their parents and were still trying to work their way through college.

Now why should adult children get SS payments because their parents have died?

Seriously, &%$%# Ronald Reagan. So my Dad paid into Social Security all his life after serving his country in WWII, died at 56, and his kids didn't see any of that money.

If you had been a minor, i.e., under 18, you would have received a dependency benefit until you turned 18.

BTW, Republicans have repeatedly tried to change SS so that you have your own SS account and can leave that money to your spouse or children, but Democrats have blocked it every time. I'm not talking about a private investment account with SS taxes in it, but a federal account in your name with all of your SS taxes held in it, and the ability to leave that money to someone when you die.

Seriously &%$# Reagan.

He proposed letting Wall Street Loot the Social Security Fund, which even Republicans balked at. Then we found out that Wall Street had looted all our mortgages and 401Ks.

Oh, hogwash. Is there any liberal myth that you don't believe? If you're talking about his proposal to allow people the option to have their SS taxes invested in investment funds of their choice, that would hardly have been "letting Wall Street loot the Social Security Fund."

Wall Street didn't loot my mortgage or my 401Ks. When and how did Wall Street loot your mortgage and 401Ks? I'm trying to imagine how surreal your answer is going to be.

 

[JoeB131]

Not on this planet. Not in this reality. He cut taxes for everyone, not just the rich. And the middle class greatly expanded under Reagan. The net worth of families earning between $20K and $50K rose by 27%. Real GNP rose by 26%. He cut inflation from 13.5% to 4.1%. And on and on we could go.

No, you stupid Mormon idiot, he RAISED taxes on the middle class by jacking up social security payments and getting rid of a lot of middle class deductions such as credit card deductions on Schedule A.

The middle class declined under Reagan.

Of course, in your bizarre reality, OJ was innocent, Kiddy-diddler Joseph Smith was really talking to God, the Japs were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor and the Rape of Nanking wasn't that bad.

Oh, hogwash. Is there any liberal myth that you don't believe? If you're talking about his proposal to allow people the option to have their SS taxes invested in investment funds of their choice, that would hardly have been "letting Wall Street loot the Social Security Fund."

Wall Street didn't loot my mortgage or my 401Ks. When and how did Wall Street loot your mortgage and 401Ks? I'm trying to imagine how surreal your answer is going to be.

Yo, who did you think was going to control our choices? "Here's the funds of your choice you are going to be locked into while we go ahead and manipulate the market with day-trading!!!"

So let's talk about mortgages, shall we? What Wall Street did was take a mortgage and overstate their value, counting not only the property value but all future mortgage payments as "income", then sold these garbage mortgages as investments. When the scam fell apart, that's why we had the 2008 crash. Not to worry, the Billionaires got bailouts and the rest of us ended up with underwater mortgages and busted 401K's.