Republicans Release Plan to Cut Social Security

[imported_tajmahal]

Nah, Trump will tweet that Obama did it from a golf course and the faithful will drop to their knees and thank God that they have a republican in power. Meanwhile in the land of critical thinking the educated minds will engage in face palming as we view the next big top circus act unfold.

Wow, a home run of pomposity, egotism, conceit and narcissism. You sir are a winner.

 

[MrSquished]

Nah, Trump will tweet that Obama did it from a golf course and the faithful will drop to their knees and thank God that they have a republican in power. Meanwhile in the land of critical thinking the educated minds will engage in face palming as we view the next big top circus act unfold.

I think while there are hardcore dedicated Trumpists that would find no flaw in anything, that there was a big enough portion of his voters that did so partly out of skepticism and frustration. Keep in mind he didn't win by much in the EC and in multiple crucial states that swayed the election, and he lost the popular. It wouldn't take too many of them to change the direction of the next election. Not to mention there are voters who sat at home whose primary issues are SS & Medicare - seniors. I suspect they will get out and vote in 2018 if they pass these things.

 

[Ackmed]

Everybody was doing that back in 1929.

Life's uncertainties dictate that those of us who are more fortunate need to be generous if only as a form of insurance. Being young & successful now doesn't mean you always will be. There's the small matter of Karma, as well, if you believe in such things.

The only reason SS might not be there for you is if too many people start thinking the way you do.

And how do I think? Please explain.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, a home run of pomposity, egotism, conceit and narcissism. You sir are a winner.

So to be clear you don't like pompous, egotistic, conceited narcissists but you voted for Trump.

Lol.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So to be clear you don't like pompous, egotistic, conceited narcissists but you voted for Trump.

Lol.

yep and i've stated several times before that I don't like him and consider him a typical effing asshole from New York.

 

[chowderhead]

the bonus is that if the Repubs gut SS and Medicare they will probably lose a shit ton of votes

zero votes from Republican on the budget deficit reduction act of 1993. peace and prosperity under Clinton. voters vote in George W and he proceeds to give massive tax cuts to the rich, explode the deficit and give us two unfunded wars and a shit economy. voters vote in Obama who begins to turn the economy around and get Obamacare with zero Republican votes. Republicans shut down government and are rewarded with both Houses of Congress. I see no reason why voters won't reward Republicans again for cutting SS and Medicare.

Maybe instead of exploding the deficit with tax cuts that weakens the ability of government to fund SS and Medicare, they strengthen SS by not having unfunded wars or tax cuts for the super wealthy?

 

[fskimospy]

yep and i've stated several times before that I don't like him and consider him a typical effing asshole from New York.

Convenient!

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Convenient!

I'm not a Democrat that has to pretend his leaders are awesome and good people.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not a Democrat that has to pretend his leaders are awesome and good people.

Why would you think democrats do that? You seem to have a pretty twisted world view if you do.

 

[Muse]

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

The PDF downloadable from the link to Table B2 looks completely authentic, credible enough.

 

[crashtech]

It seems to me that a conservative plan to reform SS would naturally be lacking tax increases, just as a liberal plan to reform SS would of course be lacking in cuts. Legislation should ideally incorporate aspects of both philosophies, but that gets more difficult to do with every passing year. It's really too bad that no one is talking about the simplest partial solution, which is a bump in FICA tax, which hasn't gone up since 1990. Even as a very small employer, I could afford a modest increase, and from experience I know that most employees won't even notice the difference. For a $15/hr worker, a full point is just six bucks a week, which of course would be employer matched. My guess is that alone would go a long way to fixing the problem.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans need to be allowed to do their worst. Americans have forgotten some important lessons and have to be retaught them, the hard way.

 

[IronWing]

It seems to me that a conservative plan to reform SS would naturally be lacking tax increases, just as a liberal plan to reform SS would of course be lacking in cuts. Legislation should ideally incorporate aspects of both philosophies, but that gets more difficult to do with every passing year. It's really too bad that no one is talking about the simplest partial solution, which is a bump in FICA tax, which hasn't gone up since 1990. Even as a very small employer, I could afford a modest increase, and from experience I know that most employees won't even notice the difference. For a $15/hr worker, a full point is just six bucks a week, which of course would be employer matched. My guess is that alone would go a long way to fixing the problem.

It isn't the tax rate so much as the tax base that is the core problem. As wages have stagnated and more of the national income goes to the very wealthy, the SS tax base has been eroded. If the same percentage of the national income was subject to SS taxes now as was the case in the 1970s, there would be no SS funding issue. As the wealthy shifted from salaries to capital gains for extracting profits, they sidestepped SS taxes (as well as getting the reduced capital gains tax rate). Increasing the SS tax base is imperative if the program is to both "be saved" and to function as intended. The GOP plan "saves" Social Security but does so by diminishing the effectiveness of the program.

 

[Jhhnn]

And how do I think? Please explain.

If you didn't get it the first time there's little point in repeating it because you're too self absorbed to see it. Fortune has smiled upon you in ways you don't appreciate.

There are a lot of really, really poor-assed people who've worked their whole lives who are extremely vulnerable to any cuts in SS & other services. OTOH, I've done well so I've never begrudged the money I paid into SS to try to keep it from getting worse for them.

That's not entirely unselfish, because I could have been that guy. You still might be.

 

[crashtech]

It isn't the tax rate so much as the tax base that is the core problem. As wages have stagnated and more of the national income goes to the very wealthy, the SS tax base has been eroded. If the same percentage of the national income was subject to SS taxes now as was the case in the 1970s, there would be no SS funding issue. As the wealthy shifted from salaries to capital gains for extracting profits, they sidestepped SS taxes (as well as getting the reduced capital gains tax rate). Increasing the SS tax base is imperative if the program is to both "be saved" and to function as intended. The GOP plan "saves" Social Security but does so by diminishing the effectiveness of the program.

Isn't increasing the base beyond the scope of any reform to the program itself? It seems that from a structural and demographic view, the base is not going to increase any time soon.

 

[Ackmed]

If you didn't get it the first time there's little point in repeating it because you're too self absorbed to see it. Fortune has smiled upon you in ways you don't appreciate.

There are a lot of really, really poor-assed people who've worked their whole lives who are extremely vulnerable to any cuts in SS & other services. OTOH, I've done well so I've never begrudged the money I paid into SS to try to keep it from getting worse for them.

That's not entirely unselfish, because I could have been that guy. You still might be.

I said I'd rather invest my own money. I think a lot of people feel the same way. I won't even get close to the same amount I put in. I'll have substantially less in return, while waiting longer to get it. I can do better, at least get a dollar for dollar return. Paying about $600 a month while getting about $450 back when it's time if this new plan passes in January sucks. Nobody can argue that.I don't know who'd be happy about that.

I never once said I want to get ride of SS. In fact I said if I had a vote, I'd vote to keep it. Because I'd rather be a little unhappy than others not get any sort of retirement. Why don't you actually read my posts and comprehend them before replying. That seems selfless rather than self absorbed.

Instead of always going against everything I say, try reading and understanding first.