It is becoming clear that Democrats want to make Social Security a significant campaign issue for the upcoming mid-term election. Yesterday, the President warned that Republicans want to "sunset" Social Security.
Of course, the New York Times tried to "both sides" the issue by warning that Social Security is in "limbo" and on "unstable ground" neither of which is true. The Department of Defense isn't funded past midnight Friday. Does that mean that the nation's defense is in "limbo" and on "unstable ground"?
Current funding mechanisms for Social Security really aren't what assures that Social Security will remain afloat. Those could always be changed for the worse. Social Security's future is guaranteed because the American people love Social Security and depend heavily upon it. That's not going to change. This means that Republican talk of "sunsetting" Social Security is absurd. You could also say that it's absurd to warn that Social Security could be "sunsetted" if Republicans have their way but at least the President is talking about the hopeless desire of many Republicans.
17 comments:
Saying that Republicans want to "sunset" social security is hyperbole. What many people want is to see it reformed. I and many others are sick and tired of the government trying to control every damn aspect of our lives. If it is really our money, set up private accounts so that we actually own it. Let us pass it down to our children. As it stands now, we pay all this money in on the HOPE AND ONLY HOPE that Congress will deem to give it back when we retire. And, Congress gets to decide how much to give back to us. This isn't freedom. Those who want the government to make all the decisions for them are not people who want to be free. And, as far as the disability program... it is simply hard to put into words how absurdly it operates. Give me an annuity that is required to be invested safely with a disability insurance program included and back it with a program similar to the FDIC program. First, we won't do that because it makes sense. Second, we won't do that because it would take power away from the politicians and the citizens of this country who want to force their views on the rest of us. Really, the solution is to decentralize power. Our federal government now in now way resembles the founders' vision. We have an all powerful centralized government that takes in more and more power for itself every single day. The Constitution is nothing more than toilet paper to the politicians, courts and federal agencies like social security. Its time for the people to stand up and demand that power be returned to the local level We have strayed far from government by the people and we desperately need to return to that. If we don't, we have at most 30 years left as a country.
I agree social security is a democrat talking point as is abortion. But it's not absurd to believe republicans will limit or restrict social security/medicare if they have the majority including the presidency.
Chuck you are smarter than that.
@11:34 Republicans HAD the White House in the 115th US congress in 2016 under the former president. SSA is still around.
@10:42
Your proposed "reform" is to privatize Social Security, albeit with controls as to how risky the beneficiary can invest, but also to require the feds to back losses through an FDIC-like program.
Decentralization is not inherently good, and to the extent the current federal government operates contrary to the views of the founders, yeah that was the point of the reconstruction amendments. I have no interest in power being returned to the "local level," as my "local level" is quite insane.
You don't lack freedom by having a fraction of your income used to pay for social programs, particularly as you stand to benefit from those programs. Finally, I do sympathize that you feel concern that Congress could not give back the money you paid in once you retire. In reality, that's about as unlikely a possibly as exists.
@12:42 Yes but the trump administration also wanted to increase Continuing disability reviews. President Bush wanted social security privitized.
I stated social security would be more limited under republican control giving enough time(two term republican administration?).
@1:08 - 15 percent is a pretty big fraction. (if you are employed your employer pays 1/2 but if you are self employed you pay the full amount).
@2:21. Yeah, it’s a sizable chunk of your pay, but the return on that investment is mind blowing as long as you live to your retirement age. The health insurance coverage it buys you alone makes it a far better investment than any private investment vehicle available to 99% of the population. And even if you die before you hit retirement age, your spouse still gets to enjoy an increase return on that investment.
@2:21:
Yes, but most self employed people also get to reduce their income by 20% for income tax purposes, which reduces their total income tax as long as we have QBI in place.
So, for example, if you are a single self-employed making $100,000 per year, you are only paying income tax on $80,000 of that. So, while you are paying the 15% self-employment tax on that last $20,000, you don't have to pay the 22/24% income tax on that last $20,000. This makes your combined self-employment and income tax rate for the your $20,000 negative 7% to negative 9%.
So, for self-employed people, every year during half of October, and all of November and December, the government stops making you pay any tax to them and starts paying tax to you instead.
lol @ 10:42 AM. "Setup private accounts". Right.. 95% of Americans spend all their money every month -- we're consumers. We look at money in the bank as money to be spent not saved. There would be so much poverty by retirement age if you expect everyone to save money here. We need the social security system; it keeps people off the streets. Also we need it for disability insurance as well, for those who are unfortunate.
Exactly! The privatization of Social Security would lead to societal collapse. It is in everyones' interest, whether they be rich, poor, or middle class, to at least maintain the status quo, if not bolster the benefit formula to make the payouts more generous.
Widespread poverty begets desperation and attendant widespread violence.
"Social Security's future is guaranteed because the American people love Social Security and depend heavily upon it. That's not going to change."
For many years, this line of reasoning was sound in this country. After the Dobbs ruling from SCOTUS, I think that needs to be reconsidered. If the wing nut rabid right want to destroy something, they will not stop until they find a way, legal or otherwise.
Privatizing takes the security out of Social Security.
SSA is a non-issue in this election. Crime, inflation and the economy are far bigger. Maybe it would be if more Republicans wanted to end or amend it. Senator Scott wanting to "sunset it..." What that means is that it and other programs would have to be voted for periodically. I don't know of any other member of Congress who thinks this a good idea. People need certainty, especially in retirement planning. Privatization might be a long term plan, but, is probably only popular among people who think SS won't be there for them.
I don't know a single Republican who talks about sun setting social security.
Security is equal both ways. If you still end up below poverty level if it is the only retirement or disability plan you have.
"I don't know a single Republican who talks about sun setting social security." Other than Sen. Rick Scott? According to the Washington Post:
The main source of this accusation is a document issued by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which helps elect Republicans to the Senate. In February, Scott released a 60-page “11-point plan to rescue America” that offered 128 proposals.
Buried on Page 38, in a section on government restructuring, was one sentence: “All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.”
“Sunset” is inside-the-Beltway lingo. The Congressional Research Service offers this definition: “The sunset concept provides for programs and agencies to terminate automatically on a periodic basis unless explicitly renewed by law.” In theory, then, even a venerable program such as Social Security or Medicare would have to prove its worth all over again every five years, though neither was specifically mentioned.
If you wanted to cripple or kill an extremely popular benefit program, how would you go about it? Plant seeds of doubt about it. Keep watering them until they grow into weeds that take over the garden. How do you save the garden? Keep pulling the weeds. When you catch the ones planting the bad seeds spray some political pesticide on them. Thanks for tending the garden Chuck.
Post a Comment