3
   

John Boehner's plans for Social Security

 
 
DrewDad
 
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:22 pm
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/29/880270/-GOP-vs.-Social-Security

Quote:
ON RAISING THE SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT AGE:
On Social Security, we're all living a lot longer than anybody ever expected. I think raising the retirement age, going out twenty years from now, not affecting anyone close to retirement, and eventually getting the retirement age to seventy is a step that needs to be taken.

ON BANNING OUTSIDE INCOME FOR SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS:
If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you are retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?

ON MAKING CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY THE GOP'S #1 FISCAL PRIORITY:
I think Social Security would be the most logical place to start. It's just a matter of numbers.


Now, I agree with increasing the retirement age and I agree with adjusting the benefits to a sustainable level, but making Social Security into Welfare?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 2,583 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:37 pm
@DrewDad,
Social security is nothing but a ponzi scheme.

When it was first introduced, they used the line, "Americans are not smart enough to save money for their retirement so the government is going to save money for them."

What did the government do? They spent all the money and have turned it into a form of taxation. Now they want to try to get out from under this tax burden by raising the age in which people will start to receive it? In other words they want you to die before they have to start paying out.

Social security this year has run a deficit, meaning that the amount of money that it brings in from working tax salary payers is less than the money they are paying out to social security recipients. This means that the government has to install a new form of taxation to pay for the offset in losses. So they are trying to introduce ways to get out from under their burden which is increase the age of recipients.

Also they want to not pay you if you are receiving other income? Since the government lies about inflation rates, the amount of money that the average recipient receives is far lower than living standards. The only way these retirees can afford to live is by offsetting their social security income with some other form of income. Now the government wants to punish them for trying to live a normal standard of living.

The government has failed the American people, gouging workers by deducting their wages and telling them that its to go towards their retirement which will eventually never pay out because the government hopes you will die before the time comes for them to pay out or if you try to offset your income they will cut you off.

Government has won again and sells people on the idea that the government is working for their best interest.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:42 pm
@DrewDad,
I agree. You pay into it and often against your will.

On the age thing, I have mixed feelings. Yes, we live longer, and yes we can work longer - some of us. Top corporate executives are often well over 65. Many manuel laborers, whether skilled or not start having pains in the back, joints, feet, and whatever. I also consider the desirability of older people trying for new jobs. It's an uphill road, even if your own field is still viable.

I note that VA medical care is also treated as welfare, unless there is a service connected disability. There is both an income and an asset test applied. I do not like this.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:46 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Also they want to not pay you if you are receiving other income? Since the government lies about inflation rates, the amount of money that the average recipient receives is far lower than living standards. The only way these retirees can afford to live is by offsetting their social security income with some other form of income. Now the government wants to punish them for trying to live a normal standard of living.


Not exactly. You have an earnings limit if you retire before your full retirement age. Exceed your limit and you start losing $1 for every $2 earned. When you reach full retirement age, you can earn as much as you want, though at some point, your SS income becomes taxable.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 07:57 am
It's just a matter of demographics. Unless someone has a viable plan whereby the work force coming up behind the boomers can support the SS outflow to the newly retired (they have a life expectancy bordering on 25 years post retirement) then something has to be done.

Yes, we all paid into the system. Yes, we were lied to. Oh well... that's old news. What's the answer moving forward?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 07:57 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/29/880270/-GOP-vs.-Social-Security

Quote:
ON RAISING THE SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT AGE:
On Social Security, we're all living a lot longer than anybody ever expected. I think raising the retirement age, going out twenty years from now, not affecting anyone close to retirement, and eventually getting the retirement age to seventy is a step that needs to be taken.

ON BANNING OUTSIDE INCOME FOR SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS:
If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you are retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?

ON MAKING CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY THE GOP'S #1 FISCAL PRIORITY:
I think Social Security would be the most logical place to start. It's just a matter of numbers.


Now, I agree with increasing the retirement age and I agree with adjusting the benefits to a sustainable level, but making Social Security into Welfare?
The reason people are living longer is that they are not being worked to death... Why not raise the retirement age to a hundred and that would solve their problems completely... You understand, don't you, that if the government borrows from the rich or from some foreign people that they pay interest on the loan; but that, if they borrow from social security trust, they pay no interest, when even a small interest would have made the fund viable well into the future... When I drive I want a lot of frazzled over worked senior citizens on the road with me... And when I get to work I want a lot of senior citizens lost in memories clogging up the works... The fact is that no employer wants the old, and so the old will not get hired, and they will suffer such want of necessities that if they do not die of overwork, they will die of worry...The fact is that the repubicans have never liked social security, and they will manage to kill it or put in out of reach for most, if not all... The other thing they will do is means test it... For some one who has worked for a pension and social security you may have one but not both... This is just another way of robbing wealth from the commonwealth... They are broke because they will not tax the rich... They insist upon the country working for the rich, and till now they have managed to collect the share of taxes the rich would not pay out of the sweat of working people...And this has redistributed wealth to the rich in a matter of a few years... We have reached the point where so few people are working in productive employment, and where the rich now own virtually the whole country, that if the rich are not taxed, the country will bust...

I think boner ought to follow through with his plans, and we ought to revolt...
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:01 am
The republicans?

oh ****.... here we go again.

Dude, this is not a partisan issue. Who do you think most of those crazy sign-carrying nuts vote for? You know... the ones who don't want health care reform but don't want their medicare touched?

Can we PLEASE have a discussion that doesn't jump straight to politics as usual?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:04 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

The republicans?

oh ****.... here we go again.

Dude, this is not a partisan issue. Who do you think most of those crazy sign-carrying nuts vote for? You know... the ones who don't want health care reform but don't want their medicare touched?

Can we PLEASE have a discussion that doesn't jump straight to politics as usual?


This is a rich against poor issue, and the republicans are on the wrong side of it...
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:07 am
No it's not. It's an issue of an entire generation of Americans (the largest one ever) paying into a system their entire working lives only to discover that the cookie jar is empty. On top of that, the workforce coming up behind them is un- or under-employed.

Reality check time. We don't need to spend energies pointing figures at this side or that when both are culpable. We just need to figure out where to go from here.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:12 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

It's just a matter of demographics. Unless someone has a viable plan whereby the work force coming up behind the boomers can support the SS outflow to the newly retired (they have a life expectancy bordering on 25 years post retirement) then something has to be done.

Yes, we all paid into the system. Yes, we were lied to. Oh well... that's old news. What's the answer moving forward?

There is no way the boomers can support all the retirees... Think of it, If we have two people working supporting one retiree... It is impossible; unless you consider that one person can produce what it took ten to produce only a few short years ago...That wealth could go to support the old, or it could be used to inflate profits... Which do you prefer???

Perhaps you would rather think of our economy as a vast ponsi scheme... The first ones in have to be the first ones out, and then it can all fall down.. Look at how often we have had to support the economy in recent years that should be able to support all people.... We go broke as a nation trying to keep capitalism out of the grave, but the poor and old we want to see worked right to death... God Bless America...
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:17 am
@Fido,
You've lost me. Or, I've lost you - I'm not sure which. The boomers I'm talking about ARE the newly retired. Or, they will be over the next 10-15 years. I think we're saying the same thing there but I want to be sure.

What's your answer for an aging demographic who didn't save during their working lives, are totally unprepared financially for retirement, have a life expectancy of 85 - 90, and a system that's broke and a workforce that can't get jobs?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:20 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

No it's not. It's an issue of an entire generation of Americans (the largest one ever) paying into a system their entire working lives only to discover that the cookie jar is empty. On top of that, the workforce coming up behind them is un- or under-employed.

Reality check time. We don't need to spend energies pointing figures at this side or that when both are culpable. We just need to figure out where to go from here.

I agree that both parties are responsible for the condition of social security just by their mutual irresponsibility... This is a common wealth, and if there is no justice to working people, if the income tax was used to rob them of their wealth, to put property out of their reach and to force their reliance on credit, then the common wealth does not work, and really has not worked for a long time... This country was designed with extra protections for property because the property paid the taxes...The income tax was designed to soak the rich, but has been pushed down to soak the poor for the benefit of the rich...Those who have benefitted from the government and laws refuse to support the government which supports them... It is time for change, complete and total... Change.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:24 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

It is time for change, complete and total... Change.


I agree.

Now... where do we go from here?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:30 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

You've lost me. Or, I've lost you - I'm not sure which. The boomers I'm talking about ARE the newly retired. Or, they will be over the next 10-15 years. I think we're saying the same thing there but I want to be sure.

What's your answer for an aging demographic who didn't save during their working lives, are totally unprepared financially for retirement, have a life expectancy of 85 - 90, and a system that's broke and a workforce that can't get jobs?

They did not save because they were not paid enough, because they were taxed out of their wealth, and because property which was once forced down in price was supported in price by the governments unwillingness to tax it.. Look at the reasons for which this country was formed... Does it say anything there about keeping capitalism on life support??? Justice, liberty, tranquility, welfare are clearly stated, but the government has never made an issue of them...It has said that what was good for capital is good for the people and that is false... It is the use of an idea: Capital, not to think, but to avoid thought... When the government began to tax income for the middle classes, it actually drove down wages... People had to work twice for the same dollar they took home once...Profits soared, but were left untouched, and now that the whole people is robbed of their inheritance, they say they have empty pockets... It is a lie...Hang the rich up by their hamstrings and the money will flow out of them...You notice they have plenty of money to influence elections, but never when it comes to paying taxes...
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:32 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Fido wrote:

It is time for change, complete and total... Change.


I agree.

Now... where do we go from here?

Do not bother organizing for change... Form new relationships based upon a better sense of value... Do not cooperate with your government... Resist it at every opportunity... Disentrall yourself... Look for what is truely of value, and commit to living with it...
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:33 am
@DrewDad,
Here's the commentary in the rest of the article linked above.

Quote:
This is a big deal. It's not just that he wants to cut Social Security, it's that he says cutting Social Security would be at the center of the GOP's fiscal policy if Republicans win the November elections.

And not only is Boehner saying he wants to raise the retirement age to 70, he also is proposing to ban Social Security recipients from earning "substantial" amounts of outside income. That's a truly radical notion: John Boehner thinks people who have paid Social Security taxes their entire life should be denied Social Security if they earn outside income above a certain level.

So in Boehner's view, everybody should pay for Social Security, but only some people should get it, and they shouldn't get it until they are 70. And he's pledging to push that agenda as Speaker. I think his ideas are ridiculous but he's right on one thing: they do deserve to be at the center of the debate. Voters deserve to know that Republicans will try to gut Social Security if they win the elections this fall.


The author thinks the ideas are ridiculous but he doesn't give any alternatives. I've never said this before and it's highly doubtful that I'll ever say it again, but I agree with Boehner's sentiments.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:38 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

They did not save because they were not paid enough, because they were taxed out of their wealth


Not entirely. But, I don't want to discuss the past. I want to discuss solutions moving forward.

What do you think we should do?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:39 am
@Fido,
ah.... anarchy!

ok - but how is that going to feed/house/support the aging demographic that faces us?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 10:02 am
Not only do I think we need to turn SS into welfare, but I also think we need to do something about long term care of the aged. My admittedly controversial proposal would be to establish DNR as the norm for all adults (not just the aged) unless explicit care instructions are in place to provide extreme interventions.

I'm not talking about unplugging grandma. I'm saying we shouldn't plug grandma in to begin with unless grandma has made the effort to say she wants to life-extending interventions.

Do I like any of this? No. There's nothing to like. I just don't think we can continue to stick our heads in the sand and do nothing but bitch about what got us here.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 10:42 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

No it's not. It's an issue of an entire generation of Americans (the largest one ever) paying into a system their entire working lives only to discover that the cookie jar is empty. On top of that, the workforce coming up behind them is un- or under-employed.

Reality check time. We don't need to spend energies pointing figures at this side or that when both are culpable. We just need to figure out where to go from here.


But, the cookie jar isn't empty. Relatively minor changes - such as raising the retirement age to 70, or removing the caps on SS taxation - ensure that the system works exactly as planned for 50 years or more from now.

All this hysteria about SS going broke is just not true...

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » John Boehner's plans for Social Security
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 02:08:56