Republicans Release Plan to Cut Social Security

[Paratus]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/09/top_republican_releases_social_security_plan.html

The plan offers a model for what the GOP would do in a Social Security reform effort. The bill includes 15 specific changes, some of them more complex than others, and this letter from the chief auditor of Social Security analyzes each of them.Broadly: It would cut benefits without raising taxes. Some of the more recognizable changes include a gradual increase in the normal retirement age from 67 to 69 for those born in 1968 or later, and it would peg cost-of-living adjustments to chained CPI, a slower-growing inflation index. There are a lot of technical changes to the benefit formula, as well as additional "work incentives." (None of these changes would affect benefits for anyone currently at the normal retirement age, save for some of the highest earners.) Since implementing these cuts alone would make the law politically unpalatable, it would increase benefits for some of the lowest-income, longest-working earners, while the highest future earners would see the largest benefit cuts. But let’s be clear: most people would see cuts. Look for yourself, on Table B2!

Doesn't it seem like messing with Social
Security has a high likelihood of horribly backfiring on congressional republicans?

Especially with Paul Ryan going after Medicare.

I

 

[Jaskalas]

Because we're supposed to rely on being rich later in life?
Or maybe the good graces of generous donations...

Social safety net is a basic tenant of good governance for a humane society that ensures no one starves or dies of poverty.
Let's keep it that way.

 

[compuwiz1]

Slate. I'll wait for a credible news site.

 

[ivwshane]

Slate. I'll wait for a credible news site.

Lol! I'm pretty sure if one of the right wing news sites you visit ever posted this you'd either ignore it or excuse it.

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/09/top_republican_releases_social_security_plan.html


Doesn't it seem like messing with Social
Security has a high likelihood of horribly backfiring on congressional republicans?

Especially with Paul Ryan going after Medicare.

I

You apparently haven't been paying attention. For the last eight years the repubs have been doing their best to be horrible politicians and they have been rewarded everytime. There are no consequences for their behavior you poor, ignorant fool!

 

[Paratus]

Slate. I'll wait for a credible news site.

Straight from the bills author.
http://samjohnson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398516

...The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 ensures Social Security will be there when Americans need it by:

• Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
• Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
• Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
• Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
• Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
• Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
• Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
• Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.

If you are looking for interpretations of the impacts from other parties I haven't found that yet.

 

[Paratus]

Here's a link to a PDF from the Social Security's Chief Actuary on his interpretation of the proposed bill. (It covers basically what Slate says)
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SJohnson_20161208.pdf

 

[trenchfoot]

I can just imagine the mental gymnastics a lot of destitute working class Trump supporters are going through after hearing of this, struggling to find a way to see this proposed hack job of their long time proven benefits as somehow being a good thing for themselves.

 

[Jhhnn]

I can just imagine the mental gymnastics a lot of destitute working class Trump supporters are going through after hearing of this, struggling to find a way to see this proposed hack job of their long time proven benefits as somehow being a good thing for themselves.

Repubs' objective over the next 4 years will be to shove it so far & so fast up America's ass that we'll never get it out, and they may succeed.

 

[sportage]

Yes, one need not be kicked in the head by a horse to understand this is and has been exactly the republican wet-dream since GW Bush gave it a try.

I find it absolutely comical that even one republican or Trump supporter out there would dare question the legitimacy of this news article.
What does it matter the source? You know this is true.
We all know this has been their plan all along.
If some poor schmuck that voted republican and supported Trump is shocked by this republican agenda, for gods sake wake up, pull your head out of your ass, and get a life.....

This should not shock most people, their plan.
The shock would have been believing anything Donald Trump promised.
This is exactly why their establishment stood by quietly and supported Trump, because this is what they wanted from that win.
And now that the nightmare has come true, the Paul Ryan's have little further use for Donald Trump.
They got out of Trump exactly what they wanted.
And now... its on to business as usual. Their further annihilation of the middle class.
God....I swear, will the people never learn?

 

[IronWing]

Here's a link to a PDF from the Social Security's Chief Actuary on his interpretation of the proposed bill. (It covers basically what Slate says)
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SJohnson_20161208.pdf

Basically it spares the current geezers and starts fucking everyone else in 2023. Missing from the proposal is any plan to restore the SS tax base. This doesn't really solve any problems but does provide cover for the Reps to kick the SS funding problem farther down the road, safely past the 2020 election and redistricting fight. Cutting benefits doesn't fix any problems, just passes those problems onto other programs.

The plan is based partially on rising life expectancy. Unfortunately, capacity to perform work doesn't track with life expectancy. People live longer but they don't necessarily have more work years in them. Raising the retirement age to 69 is not going to magically make older workers more productive.

 

[trenchfoot]

Repubs' objective over the next 4 years will be to shove it so far & so fast up America's ass that we'll never get it out, and they may succeed.

They have the notion, they have the wherewithal and now they have complete control of the gov't to make it all happen, and the folks who voted for all of this are the very first ones that are going to get shanked in the back as a hearty Thank You SUCKERS! from Trump and his fellow billionaires.

I keep wondering why it is that a lot of folks completely ignore the fact that dismantling those essential social services the gov't provides and then handing them over to the very wealthy to exploit to their heart's content is a cornerstone of the GOP's ideological agenda and they will leap at the chance to employ this agenda every single chance they get, thus putting in doubt the future prospects of those working class folks retiring in relative comfort and receiving a modicum of decent health care in their waning years.

Bush 43 proved that the pursuit of that agenda was of their highest priority way beyond doubt, so what is it and why is it that so many working class folks keep allowing themselves to get so easily hoodwinked into voting for their own demise?

 

[chowderhead]

We need the tax cuts for the billionaires so they can buy their fourth house and trade in their third wives. These are the job creators. Those grubby 40-50 year olds that are the bulk of the Republican voters need to work into their 70s and 80s so people can get their tax cuts. Republicans come into power and explode the deficit with tax cuts and unfunded wars. People express shock at the shitty econmy under Republicans and hire Democrats. Democrats work to fix the damage and then the voters pull this crap again. I say let them have their deficits and benefit cuts and debt for their children so rich people can get their jets and tax cuts. Look in the mirrors voters, this is what we get.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I have no issue with increasing the retirement age. People live much longer now than they did in the 1930s. And maybe that extra stress and labor will help ensure people don't spend too many years living during their least productive period.

 

[ivwshane]

I have no issue with increasing the retirement age. People live much longer now than they did in the 1930s. And maybe that extra stress and labor will help ensure people don't spend too many years living during their least productive period.

Yep! So why would they phase this in then? Why not make it take effect immediately?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Cuz they don't want to piss off their largest and best voter base, of course.

 

[Meghan54]

I have no issue with increasing the retirement age. People live much longer now than they did in the 1930s. And maybe that extra stress and labor will help ensure people don't spend too many years living during their least productive period.

The notion that people live much longer now than back in the 1930's is sorta incorrect. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality.

A more appropriate metric for this discussion is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood. The average life expectancy at age 65 has increased an average of 5 years since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.


Average Remaining Life Expectancy for Those Surviving to Age 65

(M) (F)
1940 12.7 14.7
1950 13.1 16.2
1960 13.2 17.4
1970 13.8 18.6
1980 14.6 19.1
1990 15.3 19.6

https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

 

[trenchfoot]

We need the tax cuts for the billionaires so they can buy their fourth house and trade in their third wives. These are the job creators. Those grubby 40-50 year olds that are the bulk of the Republican voters need to work into their 70s and 80s so people can get their tax cuts. Republicans come into power and explode the deficit with tax cuts and unfunded wars. People express shock at the shitty econmy under Republicans and hire Democrats. Democrats work to fix the damage and then the voters pull this crap again. I say let them have their deficits and benefit cuts and debt for their children so rich people can get their jets and tax cuts. Look in the mirrors voters, this is what we get.

Yeah but, Trump PROMISED them he would save their jobs, get those rapist murdering illegal immigrants the hell out of Dodge, build a wall to keep America safe from the illegal hordes storming across the border, stop the Muslim terrorist invasion from entering OUR neighborhoods AND drain the swamp!

And that right there is what REALLY matters to those working class folks who put Trump in office. Apparently,it doesn't matter to them at all that they just gave their futures away to the wolves on Wall Street, the Banksters and those crooked politicians of theirs that are enabling all of it to happen, all of this snowballing from some ridiculously inflated lies that the Con Man of the Year whispered sweetly in their ears.

All we can do now is stand back and watch how the very wealthy are going to rob the nation blind, set back the middle class and the poor even further while the crooked politicians who are intimately complicit in these crimes against the nation get re-elected over and over again.

 

[compuwiz1]

This is not the whole picture. Even if implemented, it's not going to change what current retirees are on. They are not going to get a pay cut. An idea, going forward, that I am very much in favor of, is CHOICE. Yes, mandatory contribution, from your pay check, but a choice as to where your money is INVESTED. We are very right to build a program, where younger people can plan their retirements, in a way where they feel they can direct where their money is going. Most people, operating within low risk investments, would be way better off, at the retirement end, by NOT having to depend on the government, but by being able to chose where to place their money. This goes against the grain of "government is god, bigger is better, etc." Fortunately, I'm too creative to have to worry about that shit, but I recognize, everyone is not in the same boat.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have no issue with increasing the retirement age. People live much longer now than they did in the 1930s. And maybe that extra stress and labor will help ensure people don't spend too many years living during their least productive period.

You have no issues with a lot of things and willingly express them because there is something wrong with you. Looks a bit like something on the autism spectrum to me, a lack of comprehension of normal emotions???? Anyway, a heads up bro...... What you take pride in as a personal expression of frankness appears more to others as though you have sociopathic tendencies. It's not conducive of good social standing to give people the creeps. Of course you might be normal in which case you have some very serious issues.

 

[Maxima1]

This is not the whole picture. Even if implemented, it's not going to change what current retirees are on. They are not going to get a pay cut. An idea, going forward, that I am very much in favor of, is CHOICE. Yes, mandatory contribution, from your pay check, but a choice as to where your money is INVESTED. We are very right to build a program, where younger people can plan their retirements, in a way where they feel they can direct where their money is going. Most people, operating within low risk investments, would be way better off, at the retirement end, by NOT having to depend on the government, but by being able to chose where to place their money. This goes against the grain of "government is god, bigger is better, etc." Fortunately, I'm too creative to have to worry about that shit, but I recognize, everyone is not in the same boat.

No they wouldn't. Nothing changes on the macro level when you privatize except that there are more transaction costs with the ordinary folk shifting to stock and the affluent taking the securities.

 

[compuwiz1]

No they wouldn't. Nothing changes on the macro level when you privatize except that there are more transaction costs with the ordinary folk shifting to stock and the affluent taking the securities.

If I were 30 still, knowing what I know today, I'd take my chances. I would welcome choice, as long as the deduction was mandatory. What we contribute to SS gives us a set amount of income, based on our contribution, but I hate limits. There are too many people, who worked hard, but only get 1000 per month on SS. That's wasn't an investment, like good investments would have netted them. It was basically, you are required to pay in a certain amount of your income, then we decide what we'll pay you later, but not much.
The retired members of my family live with us, or other family members. They couldn't afford to live on their SS.

 

[Sunburn74]

Problem is no one really wants to support other people's retirement. The poor and vulnerable will be most negatively affected by this. A bed was made and people will have to sleep in it.

 

[boomerang]

So the narrative of the left is still that SS is entirely sustainable and should not be altered in any way? What is the theory of the left that explains why Republican lawmakers seek to make changes? Racism? That's a constant in the Dem toolbox. Is that in play now?

Where does the left think that SS deductions are "invested" now?

 

[fskimospy]

The basic, underlying argument for cutting social security now has always baffled me. It basically says because we may have to cut benefits at some point in the future we should cut benefits today. It's a pay as you go system, so that makes zero sense.