During the recently concluded Congressional campaigns Democrats attempted to portray Republican candidates as eager to cut Social Security. Republicans responded that they weren't a bit interested in cutting Social Security. So what do Republicans do now that the campaign (that went poorly for them) is over? Right, they start pressing for Social Security cuts. John Thune, who is second in the Senate Republican leadership, is saying that Republicans will press for Social Security cuts as part of the price they want paid for extending the debt ceiling.
Please don't give me the "Republicans just want to save Social Security" dodge. That's not fooling anyone.
Yeah, but as their supporters have explained in the past on posts about this topic, they’re just spouting off dishonest lies and making false promises to secure campaign donations, which is somehow a good thing in their constituents’ Fox-News-addled brains.
ReplyDeleteWhat cuts are those?
ReplyDeleteRaising full retirement age?
Cutting widow's from receiving DRCs after taking widow's benefits at age 60?
So you’re saying that efforts to diminish the benefits paid out under these programs aren’t actually cuts? The Orwellian wordplay and illogical mental gymnastics people will engage in to justify their political preferences these days really has become limitless. The American experiment is failing fast and hard.
Delete@142. I missed the cuts that are being próposed. Raising the full retirement age would be a cut for future beneficiaries and would be more politically palatable in the more distant future like the 83 amendments. There are minor tweaks that would save money like no longer paying DRCs to widow's who claimed survivor benefits first. Republicans don't like raising the tax rate because they don't like any tax increase and Democrats 8only want the ceiling lifted but some compromise on both issues would probably work the best and not require an increase in the age limits. The other option is do nothing and cut benefits 25% in 10+ years. The sooner a tax rate change is done, the less severe it needs to be.
DeleteI just don't understand why the government (mainly Republicans) wants to cut our safety net programs. Do they want the elderly, disabled, and others' on the streets? If they cut off anything that's already there, many people will fail financially. Are they wanting to reopen the asylums of the 40's and 50's? I'm not sure what anyone would gain from cutting social security. Cutting SSA is not even that popular among republican non-government citizens. I think they like to see people panic? Our governor came in like a wrecking ball 4 years ago, the feds very quickly and very bluntly put him in his place. He's a big ol' softy republican now. No more wrecking ball. Said governor now understands what happens when safety nets are cut. Panic, phones ringing endlessly, federal agencies threats of pulling funding, letters, emails...he got a very swift, hard lesson in politics...and that was under our last administration.
ReplyDeleteThune also stated support for a Romney proposal to form a bipartisan Social Security task force that will take forever to make some meaningless recommendations on how to reform Social Security. This would effectively kick the can down the road. This will be something to keep an eye on since Dems will not cut Social Security and the threat of a default gets closer.
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to see Democrats fully funded solution.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the plan that Democrats have to shore up Social Security and Medicare for the long term? Some ideas may be pretty good and workable enough to draw bipartisan support. That would be a good response to ideas that aren't so good.
ReplyDeleteThey’ve been offering reasonable solutions for decades. Unfortunately, having adequate funds requires raising funds through taxation, which a certain party has irrationally opposed regardless of need/appropriateness (except when higher taxes are proposed by that party’s leadership, and except when the burden of said tax increases falls primarily on the non- millionaire/billionaire class)
DeleteA certain large portion of the population will even vote for a candidate that promises to steal their constituents’ retirement and even kill their constituents’ spouses and children if said candidate also demonstrates a willingness to shamelessly “own the libs.”
ReplyDeleteTo 6:50 and 9:36 the Social Security 2100 Act https://larson.house.gov/issues/social-security-2100-sacred-trust goes a long way to solvency. It would go further if they did not delay increasing the cap immediately to no cap at all on earnings but Biden had pledged to not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000. If it was me, I would end the cap now.
ReplyDeleteSocial Security act 2100 increases spending. Reinstates student benefits to age 26. Student benefits were a disaster to implement as students frequently changed their status without reporting it.
DeleteA 20% increase across the board will help solvency?
Increasing the first bend point to 93% will help beneficiaries but not solvency.
Removing the cap on earnings would actually help but is there enough support for that? A self employed person making a million dollars would pay about $1000,000 more in taxes to receive a very slightly higher benefit when he or she retires. It would raise the combined federal and state income tax rate to above 65% for those who live in California.
Raise the cap to $200K and the tax rate from 6.2 to 7.5%.
4:07 Generally in agreement but first, even in CA the marginal tax rate for a single person might be 65% with no cap for someone making 1,000,000 in self employment but the overall tax bill is more like $410,000 on that $1,000,000 income including the State, Federal, And full SS Tax, basically 40% overall but still leaves $600,000 in money in pocket to live on. I think they can get by on that if they have that money throughout their work life, what they get from SS in retirement should mean nothing in terms of their life.
ReplyDelete