The Wall Street Journal is fantasizing about cuts to Social Security. It will happen -- just as soon as the Wall Street Journal supports higher taxes on those with high incomes. Anyone want to predict when that will happen?
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
why do cuts to spending have to be linked to tax increases?
obama already signaled he's more than willing to gut SS and others for additional tax revenue that doesn't include tax raises--"loophole" closures, etc.
I for one want to see legislators tackle one of the biggest (and most slanted towards the wealthy) tax expenditures--the home mortgage interest deduction. Look up the numbers on how much that sucker costs us each year, and how much of it benefits rich folks writing off 10s of thousands in mortgage interest each year, a lot of times on a second home!
Social Security, as unduly liberalized by politicians, is a Ponzi scheme. "Cuts" are inevitable. The retirement age will be raised. COLA and benefit calculations will be changed to reduce payments. Death panels will deny treatments, procedures and medications to seniors. And, last but not least, Social Security and Medicare benefits will be means tested. That's how the inevitable "cuts" will be made.
Social Security is no longer the "cash cow" it was for decades. For the feds bottom line, the program has gone from asset to liability.
Of immediate concern for the feds is the cash shortfalls, which have averaged $50B per year over the last few years, and are forecast to increase.
The Chained CPI seems to be more of a longer term tactic that doesn't address these shortfalls quickly enough, from their point of view. Whether that leads to more severe cuts is anybody's guess.
The thing that really bothers me about the person occupying the WH, is that he seems to have no loyalty to Social Security. It seems he would not feel a sense of loss or regret should cuts become law- the way a Democrat would. That makes him particularly dangerous in my book. None of us really knows who this guy is.
All I can say is that I'm glad Bernie Sanders is on the new committee.
you all are sure making a lot out of the fact that socialist sanders is on the committee. did i miss the part where he was given more than one vote on it?
And how did making the system "unduly liberalized" suddenly turn something that wasn't a Ponzi scheme into a Ponzi scheme? And what does Anon at 12:14 mean by "unduly liberalized?" Survivor benefits (they've been there since the beginning)?
Don't tell me Anon, let me guess. The answer is disability benefits, or that the disability standard is too loose. Take a look at the entire disability program, how much it costs, and that cost in relation to the total trust funds. Then come back and tell me why an "unduly liberalized" disability determination process is somehow responsible for turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme.
9 comments:
why do cuts to spending have to be linked to tax increases?
you're nuts, charles.
obama already signaled he's more than willing to gut SS and others for additional tax revenue that doesn't include tax raises--"loophole" closures, etc.
I for one want to see legislators tackle one of the biggest (and most slanted towards the wealthy) tax expenditures--the home mortgage interest deduction. Look up the numbers on how much that sucker costs us each year, and how much of it benefits rich folks writing off 10s of thousands in mortgage interest each year, a lot of times on a second home!
Senator Bernie Sanders isn't going accept any cuts to Benefits.
Social Security, as unduly liberalized by politicians, is a Ponzi scheme. "Cuts" are inevitable. The retirement age will be raised. COLA and benefit calculations will be changed to reduce payments. Death panels will deny treatments, procedures and medications to seniors. And, last but not least, Social Security and Medicare benefits will be means tested. That's how the inevitable "cuts" will be made.
Cut out the Wall Street entitlement gravy train. That's the problem.
Social Security is no longer the "cash cow" it was for decades. For the feds bottom line, the program has gone from asset to liability.
Of immediate concern for the feds is the cash shortfalls, which have averaged $50B per year over the last few years, and are forecast to increase.
The Chained CPI seems to be more of a longer term tactic that doesn't address these shortfalls quickly enough, from their point of view.
Whether that leads to more severe cuts is anybody's guess.
The thing that really bothers me about the person occupying the WH, is that he seems to have no loyalty to Social Security. It seems he would not feel a sense of loss or regret should cuts become law- the way a Democrat would. That makes him particularly dangerous in my book. None of us really knows who this guy is.
All I can say is that I'm glad Bernie Sanders is on the new committee.
you all are sure making a lot out of the fact that socialist sanders is on the committee. did i miss the part where he was given more than one vote on it?
How can a cash cow be a Ponzi scheme?
And how did making the system "unduly liberalized" suddenly turn something that wasn't a Ponzi scheme into a Ponzi scheme? And what does Anon at 12:14 mean by "unduly liberalized?" Survivor benefits (they've been there since the beginning)?
Don't tell me Anon, let me guess. The answer is disability benefits, or that the disability standard is too loose. Take a look at the entire disability program, how much it costs, and that cost in relation to the total trust funds. Then come back and tell me why an "unduly liberalized" disability determination process is somehow responsible for turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme.
Post a Comment