Aug 17, 2015

Why Do So Many Republican Candidates For President Favor Cuts In Social Security?

     Today's opinion pieces:
  • Paul Krugman at the New York Times believes most Republican candidates for President support cuts to Social Security not because these cuts are popular with the Republican base (they aren't) but because big money donors support cuts in Social Security.
  • Tim Worstall at Forbes says that you don't have to be a bloated plutocrat to favor cuts in Social Security. In fact, retirement age should be raised to 80!
  • Ezra Klein at Vox believes that one of the major reasons that Donald Trump is popular with Republican voters is that Trump doesn't favor cuts in Social Security.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

So they can have more money to put into dirty Republican pockets.We know they love wars these days

Anonymous said...

Last time I checked, there were plenty of wealthy Democrats lining their pockets off of the notion they help the poor. Both parties are a joke.

Anonymous said...

Who is trying to stick it to the disabled right now Republicans

Anonymous said...

Maybe so but Republicans are the ones who are sticking it to us FACT both parties that stole mainly Republicans for Iraq and Afghanistan wars need to pay back our money we paid into SSDI Republicans and Democrats let them use their own lifetime pensions to fight oil wars they even want to screw our veterans

Anonymous said...

Both parties are full of liars and crooks. Democrats are no better than Republicans. The Dems just pander to the poor and downtrodden to get votes. Republicans buy votes from big business. Neither truly help anyone other than themselves.

Anonymous said...

Agree w/ Anon 2:30. Pretty much sums up both parties. That is why I am neither Dem or Republican.

Anonymous said...

When Republican candidates say they favor cuts in Social Security, do they mean retirement, disability,or both? It should be a requirement for congress to know how these programs really work. The retirement portion receives 5.3% of the OASDI tax and is funded solely by this, not government subsidies. Disability receives .9% of the tax. Paul Krugman says the push for cuts comes from 'Big Money'-how does this benefit them? Tim Worstall says the retirement age should be raised to 80.This only affects people who are middle or lower class,who have worked hard their whole life and most likely are in no shape to continue past age 62. Retirement is funded by the workers and their employers for their retirement. Raising the payroll tax to keep pace with inflation is the only real solution for both funds. Are politicians and Congress even aware that these are two very distinct programs? Changing the name of the Disability program so that it does not include the words 'Social Security' would certainly help to clarify the discussion. It would also move the retirees(elderly) out of the line of fire.

Ch Te said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ch Te said...

Because they are eugenicists and believe the world is overpopulated [by poor people]? Not necessarily any party, but wealthy influential people in general; look at the views of our so-called science czar Holdren, and know these positions reach into antiquity.

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen any significant discussion of the Republican candidates' positions on Social Security reform. The Democrats' position seems to be to add/increase benefits , as always.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:30 PM said...
“I haven't seen any significant discussion of the Republican candidates' positions on Social Security reform. The Democrats' position seems to be to add/increase benefits , as always.”

Well, you haven’t looked:

Governor Christie’s cuts would eliminate about 60 percent of Social Security’s 75-year deficit. He wants to raise the Full Retirement Age from age 67 in 2022 (as under current law) to age 69 in 2033, and then index for increases in life expectancy. Christie’s plan would also shift the cost-of-living adjustment to a chained CPI (with a bump-up in benefits at age 85), phase out benefits for those with non-Social Security income between $80,000 and $200,000, a2015 6:01 And eliminate the payroll tax on working seniors. He would also increase the Earliest Age of Eligibility from 62 to 64, which has no significant cost impact because benefits are actuarially reduced when claimed early. Finally, to help reduce costs in Social Security’s disability insurance program, he proposes changes aimed at keeping more people in the workforce. In total,
Donald Trump says there is a Disability Racket: $25B in fraudulent disability filings The top estimates are $2,340,000,000 in Medicare fraud over a decade--or 16% of America's entire national debt!Then there's the disability racket. Did you know that one out of every 20 people in America now claims disability? That adds up to $170 billion a year in disability checks. Between 2005 and 2009, it is estimated that $25 billion were eaten up in fraudulent Social Security Disability Insurance filings. On and on, scam after scam it goes; as always, taxpayers are the ones getting stiffed.
Jeb bush
And certainly Medicaid and Medicare are entitlements and they’re growing at a far faster rate than anything else in government, so it will overwhelm us. The contingent liabilities are clear. We can ignore it as we’ve done now – my brother tried, got totally wiped out
Rand Paul - What I tell people is, if you look like me and you hop out of your truck, you shouldn't be getting a disability check. Over half of the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts -- join the club," he said, drawing a few laughs from the audience. "Who doesn't get a little anxious for work everyday and their back hurts? Everybody over 40 has back pain."Paul qualified his comments, saying there are people who are legitimately disabled but reiterated that there are also "malingers" who are essentially taking money "from the people who are paraplegic, quadriplegic."
Marco Rubio -These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government’s job.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon 1:57

You have a point but the operative word was "significant." Summarizing most of their positions on Social Security:

[Insert misinformation] cut benefits [insert misinformation].

Anonymous said...

@ 4:55 pm Anon, lol so true!