Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Obama: "My SS cuts are not my 'ideal' plan" So what? You want to cut all entitlements or you want to make everyone a welfare queen? In this country, it's either/or, there is no third option   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 172
    More: Interesting, obama, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Cost of Living Allowance, Sam Brownback, entitlements, social security  
•       •       •

1721 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2013 at 10:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-08 10:32:55 AM  
Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Translation: Because the poor, the elderly, the veterans and everyone who has contributed to Social Security and Medicare should have to bear the brunt of the cuts, not the well connected businesses who depend on Federal dollars to keep going.

In other words, the continuation of wealth redistribution upwards cannot be interrupted, citizen. now grit and bear it while the programs you've paid into your entire life are gutted to make sure a defense contractor can keep making useless toys so that Congressmen and Senators can brag about bringing jobs to their districts and states.
 
2013-04-08 10:42:24 AM  

Aarontology: Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Translation: Because the poor, the elderly, the veterans and everyone who has contributed to Social Security and Medicare should have to bear the brunt of the cuts, not the well connected businesses who depend on Federal dollars to keep going.

In other words, the continuation of wealth redistribution upwards cannot be interrupted, citizen. now grit and bear it while the programs you've paid into your entire life are gutted to make sure a defense contractor can keep making useless toys so that Congressmen and Senators can brag about bringing jobs to their districts and states.


Translation translation:

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-08 10:43:06 AM  
How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.
 
2013-04-08 10:45:43 AM  

vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.


The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.
 
2013-04-08 10:53:32 AM  
These are the same cuts the top 2% can't afford, right?
 
2013-04-08 10:53:49 AM  
 
2013-04-08 10:54:20 AM  
Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat
 
2013-04-08 10:57:21 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat


This.
 
2013-04-08 10:57:43 AM  
You know who else wanted to fully fund the SS?
 
2013-04-08 10:58:05 AM  

Hugh2d2: "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit."- Ronald Reagan


As appalling as it is to have to agree to something RR said, this is true.

Although chained-CPI doesn't sound like a lot of money to those who have enough right now, we should be trying to increase the SS benefits, not cut them. Seniors spend a disproportionate amount of what money on have on health care, which increases in cost far faster than inflation.

This is something Obama has been hinting at since before 2008. It should be a surprise to nobody except those who insisted on deluding themselves (both left and right) as to what he is.

// voted for O -- not deluded.
 
2013-04-08 10:59:26 AM  
Implement universal healthcare and push back the retirement age
 
2013-04-08 11:00:58 AM  

Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.


Yes
 
2013-04-08 11:01:09 AM  

Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.


mahler.ca
 
2013-04-08 11:01:10 AM  
FTFA: "You see, you don't change America by changing Washington - you change America by changing the states," [Brownback] said. "And that's exactly what Republican governors are doing across the country - taking a different approach to grow their states' economies and fix their governments with ideas that work.

Here in NC, the Publicans are cranking up the derp to 11.  Amendment One, "tax reform" to shift taxes from the plutocrats to the rest of us, that establishment of religion resolution (which fortunately is kaput), two year wait for divorce, prescriptions for pseudoephedrine.  All in the name of freedom and small government.
 
2013-04-08 11:02:48 AM  

vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/obama-social-security-cuts_ n_ 3019123.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl5|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D294060

This article from HuffPo goes into fair detail:

Once the change is fully phased in, Social Security benefits for a typical middle-income 65-year-old would be about $136 less a year, according to an analysis of Social Security data. At age 75, annual benefits under the new index would be $560 less. At 85, the cut would be $984 a year.

So yes, next month's check would be about $11 less if you are a typical 65yo.
 
2013-04-08 11:03:45 AM  

Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.


Yeah, like with an asteroid - if you see it coming a long way out, you can just nudge it a little. If you ignore it and leave it to later politicians to sort out, they will probably do the same thing. And then when the asteroid is just about to strike earth you finally are forced to act at the last minute and nuke it and hope.

One thing to remember is that SS grows faster than inflation, so even if nothing is changed when it cuts back (to 75% of normal outgoings I think is the current plan), the actual payments will still be about the same, or even somewhat higher in real times than what a equivalent current SS recipient would be getting, so the doomsday scenarios that get talked about of "getting nothing back by the time I retire" are not based on reality.

The other thing to consider is that programs like SS always look bad when the economy is weak. In a few years time the US economy might be booming and suddenly the projections show the funding will be secure until 2080 or whatever, so it is a good thing to be careful not to overreact.
 
2013-04-08 11:05:52 AM  
There really is no reason why Social Security is even being brought up in the first place. Social Security has NO involvement with the General budget. This crap is all Pete Peterson whispering like Gríma Wormtongue into Obama's ear.

And if Obama thinks this is all gonna be some cunning plan to make the republicans look bad because they won't raise taxes, he's already lost. All anyone will think of or remember was that Obama was the first Democratic President in History to use a grease gun on the slippery slope to eventually destroy Social Security.
 
2013-04-08 11:06:00 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat


Actually, per the CBO's work, it would push the trust fund exhaustion date out past the point most of us would turn 100, but it would not make the program sustainable forever.
 
2013-04-08 11:06:40 AM  

Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.


And this is also why it will never happen.  Because the majority of Americans do not understand why the system is rigged for the wealthy.  This cuts across both Republicans and Democrats.  Both parties have wealthy backers who must be appeased.
 
2013-04-08 11:07:09 AM  
Not sure about this one. The current talking point is that the reduction is 0.3% per year or an average loss of $ 42 per year to a recipient, and it doesn't invalidate COLAs, which are much more significant.  Of course, that number will keep going down, so there will have to be something that levels it out.  It would probably be worthwhile to provide means testing to the process as well.  Social Security could be administered more effectively, but everyone seems to be averse to addressing complexities in a complex system.

But for what it's worth, it's a small bargaining chip right now - I'd like to see what the President can get out of it.  If revenue can be found to cancel the sequester and offset the effects to better give short term stimulus to the economy, that would be something.  Also, if tax code can be revised to generate more revenue and lower burden on elderly, as well as better management of the bottom line for Medicare, it's possible that the individual economies of the social security recipients will be more than offset.

It's not about the 1st step but the last one.
 
2013-04-08 11:07:49 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Social Security has NO involvement with the General budget


Sure it does.  Where does SS over funding gets placed and where will SS take its funds from once it gets under funded?
 
2013-04-08 11:08:00 AM  

heypete: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.

[mahler.ca image 292x256]


I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.
 
2013-04-08 11:09:21 AM  

vernonFL: No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.


It's a classic "frog in the boiling water" scheme. The changes are small and barely felt at first, but year after year the missing money gets more and more noticeable. The longer you live, the hungrier you will get.
 
2013-04-08 11:10:53 AM  

Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.


Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

images.picturesdepot.com
WHACK!
 
2013-04-08 11:11:24 AM  

Serious Black: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

Actually, per the CBO's work, it would push the trust fund exhaustion date out past the point most of us would turn 100, but it would not make the program sustainable forever.


How would you calculate infinite sustainability on a program like this?
 
2013-04-08 11:12:21 AM  

47 is the new 42: heypete: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.

[mahler.ca image 292x256]

I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.


So that it could be sold not as a welfare plan but as a form of insurance or annuity.  If as the system is set up you would have to pay out very large sums to retired billionaires if your removed the cap.  You put a ceiling on the payout and remove the cap then you have effectively killed SS as it was designed.
 
2013-04-08 11:13:30 AM  
Hmmm if Dems and Reps don't like it, there has to be a semblance of merit to the proposal. I'll have to read a bit more into it, but from the comments and links in this thread it doesn't look as if it a bad idea. I will, however, reserve the right to rage and sulk if this proposal hurts me in any way, shape, or form later on, especially if the damage was unforeseeable or introduced by other legislation far down the line.

/should remove payroll cap
 
2013-04-08 11:13:49 AM  
This is what "Chained CPI" looks like in practice!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k65oxOc7FIo

(You Tube, but NSFW)
 
2013-04-08 11:15:34 AM  

CPennypacker: Serious Black: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

Actually, per the CBO's work, it would push the trust fund exhaustion date out past the point most of us would turn 100, but it would not make the program sustainable forever.

How would you calculate infinite sustainability on a program like this?


The CBO was looking for sustainable solvency, which means that the trust fund maintains a positive amount throughout the entire 75-year window they looked at and that the trust fund was either stable or growing at the end of the 75-year window.
 
2013-04-08 11:15:41 AM  
Worst. Socialist. Ever.
 
2013-04-08 11:16:37 AM  

Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.


www.mediaite.com

\bs, and you damn well know it
 
2013-04-08 11:17:33 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat


Job killer. Class Warfare. Socialist. Communist. Castro Lover. Traitor.
 
2013-04-08 11:17:42 AM  

Saiga410: 47 is the new 42: heypete: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.

[mahler.ca image 292x256]

I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.

So that it could be sold not as a welfare plan but as a form of insurance or annuity.  If as the system is set up you would have to pay out very large sums to retired billionaires if your removed the cap.  You put a ceiling on the payout and remove the cap then you have effectively killed SS as it was designed.


Its still insurance. If you lose your income and pass the earnings test you can collect the maximum
 
2013-04-08 11:17:51 AM  

vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.


It would switch our calculation of inflation for SS increased to chained CPI which is lower than the current CPI that is used. Effectively CPI measures inflation via a list of goods and their prices over time. Chained CPI looks at a typical household and its balance of what it buys because of these changes. So in the long effect SS recipients would see their cost of living go down to match lock step with what your typical American as opposed to their SS staying up with inflation, it would match a typical households lost of buying power with wages not going up.  In my opinion this may be a good thing.
 
2013-04-08 11:18:12 AM  

TV's Vinnie: It's a classic "frog in the boiling water" scheme


I know what you mean, but the "frog in water" story actually isn't true - if you put a frog in water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will jump out of the water when it gets uncomfortable.
 
2013-04-08 11:18:42 AM  
Vote for lesser evil, win, receive evil. Shock and horror.

Thankfully the teabaggers, for all their other sins, will never permit such a thing. Get yer gub'mint hands off my social security!
 
2013-04-08 11:18:54 AM  

47 is the new 42: heypete: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.

[mahler.ca image 292x256]

I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.


The payroll cap is the difference between it being a government-run retirement insurance and welfare for the elderly.
 
2013-04-08 11:19:19 AM  

vernonFL: TV's Vinnie: It's a classic "frog in the boiling water" scheme

I know what you mean, but the "frog in water" story actually isn't true - if you put a frog in water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will jump out of the water when it gets uncomfortable.


No.
 
2013-04-08 11:19:43 AM  

vernonFL: TV's Vinnie: It's a classic "frog in the boiling water" scheme

I know what you mean, but the "frog in water" story actually isn't true - if you put a frog in water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will jump out of the water when it gets uncomfortable.


Tested it, have you? MONSTER!
 
2013-04-08 11:19:59 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat


And problem solved.
 
2013-04-08 11:20:03 AM  

47 is the new 42: I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.


Because there is a maximum benefit. The person who pays into SS on a $10 million salary gets the exact same monthly benefit as someone who pays into in on a $100,000 salary. I'm not saying it's the most persuasive explanation, but that's the explanation.
 
2013-04-08 11:20:13 AM  
Moments of clarity

Republicans ultimately have more of an incentive to weather the sequester then to reach a deal that includes new revenues, which would deprive them of their ability to rail about spending and force a greater focus wedge issues - such as immigration - that don't favor them.

There will be no compromise.
 
2013-04-08 11:22:27 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat


B-B-But then the wealthy job creators who can retire without needing SS will be forced to pay for other old people. Its only fair that the people who actually receive the benefits are the ones who pay into the system...Its also fair for the poor people who have paid into the system all of their lives to get reduced benefits and for them to have to wait two extra years to get them.
 
2013-04-08 11:22:32 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.


Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.
 
2013-04-08 11:23:14 AM  

Serious Black: CPennypacker: Serious Black: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

Actually, per the CBO's work, it would push the trust fund exhaustion date out past the point most of us would turn 100, but it would not make the program sustainable forever.

How would you calculate infinite sustainability on a program like this?

The CBO was looking for sustainable solvency, which means that the trust fund maintains a positive amount throughout the entire 75-year window they looked at and that the trust fund was either stable or growing at the end of the 75-year window.


Right but once you get to a certain number of years out the predictions get worse and worse. At what point is it even worth doing the calculation?
 
2013-04-08 11:23:27 AM  

Uzzah: 47 is the new 42: I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.

Because there is a maximum benefit. The person who pays into SS on a $10 million salary gets the exact same monthly benefit as someone who pays into in on a $100,000 salary. I'm not saying it's the most persuasive explanation, but that's the explanation.


A max SS benefit to a rich person is chump change. A max benefit to a old or disabled NON rich person is the difference between life and death.

I'd rather see the latter have a fighting chance to survive.
 
2013-04-08 11:24:05 AM  

Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.


They can opt out of the program if they want to. They still have to pay the tax
 
2013-04-08 11:25:05 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat


If you do that, because payouts are calculated based on what you put in it becomes a full-on wealth transfer if payouts are still capped, unless you start monkeying with payouts at the end (which I'm fine with). For example, if you put in 10.2% of $200k for 20 years, but only get "credit" for having put in 10.2% of ~$110k, you lose out on ($408,000-224,400=)$183,600 in benefits.

Granted, if you made $200k for 20 years, you should have a healthier retirement plan than $184k anyway, but is means-testing SS a popular solution?
 
2013-04-08 11:25:43 AM  

CPennypacker: Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.

They can opt out of the program if they want to. They still have to pay the tax


The key word here is fair. Such a subjective thing.
 
2013-04-08 11:26:13 AM  

Uzzah: 47 is the new 42: I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.

Because there is a maximum benefit. The person who pays into SS on a $10 million salary gets the exact same monthly benefit as someone who pays into in on a $100,000 salary. I'm not saying it's the most persuasive explanation, but that's the explanation.


Essentially yes, SS is designed to mirror retirement savings. So the more you put in the more you get out, versus Medicare which is not, there is no cap, and what you put it shouldn't resemble what you get out.
 
2013-04-08 11:26:21 AM  

Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.


No it wouldn't. We are all in this together. Making sure we don't have old people starving in the streets is a collective responsibility we all share. Cough up.
 
2013-04-08 11:26:49 AM  
I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.
 
2013-04-08 11:27:11 AM  

Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.


And of course you are in favor of denying those who opt out any benefits what so ever if they end up not being rich when they are elderly, right?
 
2013-04-08 11:27:16 AM  

Ned Stark: Vote for lesser evil, win, receive evil. Shock and horror.

Thankfully the teabaggers, for all their other sins, will never permit such a thing. Get yer gub'mint hands off my social security!


Actually, they'll say, "if it wasn't for them damn blacks and mexicans, my benefits wouldn't be cut".


/all of this country's problems can be traced back to welfare queens
//Shhhhh, lets not even talk about Defense
 
2013-04-08 11:28:06 AM  

Cletus C.: CPennypacker: Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.

They can opt out of the program if they want to. They still have to pay the tax

The key word here is fair. Such a subjective thing.


Not really. If you get to use the american workforce to bolster and facilitate your fortune, then you can pay a proportional share of your income to ensure that they can eat and have somewhere to sleep after you're done using their labor. Sounds fair to me.
 
2013-04-08 11:28:26 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.


I'm sure you probably hate to say "President Obama" even more.

/sucks to be you
 
2013-04-08 11:28:28 AM  

CheapEngineer: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

[www.mediaite.com image 320x283]

\bs, and you damn well know it


Why is it a lie? An extra 1% of your income you contribute to SS starting today would have a much greater impact on when the trust fund goes kaput than if it started in 30 years.
 
2013-04-08 11:29:04 AM  
Ah yes, the old "Slower growth is OK when we do it, it is cuts when the other guy does it".

//BBSABVD
 
2013-04-08 11:29:06 AM  

redmid17: Hmmm if Dems and Reps don't like it, there has to be a semblance of merit to the proposal

 WRONG!

It's such a gigantic stinking turdburger that it even makes a republican gag.
 
2013-04-08 11:29:31 AM  
Why can't we just cut 100% of all government spending?
 
2013-04-08 11:29:57 AM  

Cletus C.: CPennypacker: Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.

They can opt out of the program if they want to. They still have to pay the tax

The key word here is fair. Such a subjective thing.


Oh look a Libertarian who still need a harsh coQpunch! Hold still.
 
2013-04-08 11:30:57 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: I'm sure you probably hate to say "President Obama" even more.

/sucks to be you


I voted for the guy.  Twice.  And I was glad when he beat Hillary in the '08 primary.  But I've grown tired of his castrated, milquetoast approach to dealing with the GOP.  I think if Hillary were elected instead of Obama, things would be better.
 
2013-04-08 11:32:11 AM  

Ned Stark: No it wouldn't. We are all in this together. Making sure we don't have old people starving in the streets is a collective responsibility we all share. Cough up.


So increase the tax rate 2 and 2?
 
2013-04-08 11:33:07 AM  

TV's Vinnie: vernonFL: TV's Vinnie: It's a classic "frog in the boiling water" scheme

I know what you mean, but the "frog in water" story actually isn't true - if you put a frog in water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will jump out of the water when it gets uncomfortable.

No.


How about "lobster in water" instead? Lobsters generally don't jump like frogs.
 
2013-04-08 11:34:20 AM  

Lost Thought 00: 47 is the new 42: heypete: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.

[mahler.ca image 292x256]

I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.

The payroll cap is the difference between it being a government-run retirement insurance and welfare for the elderly.


Do you have a cite for that being the reason?  I find having a payroll cap on SS contributions determining whether it's a government-run retirement insurance and welfare the elderly is horrible, and not really a valid reason.  Granted, it may have been argued that way when it was instituted, but it doesn't mean that whether or not having the cap is insurance and welfare.  We should be taking care of our elderly though.
 
2013-04-08 11:35:27 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: DROxINxTHExWIND: I'm sure you probably hate to say "President Obama" even more.

/sucks to be you

I voted for the guy.  Twice.  And I was glad when he beat Hillary in the '08 primary.  But I've grown tired of his castrated, milquetoast approach to dealing with the GOP.  I think if Hillary were elected instead of Obama, things would be better.


And you blame that on Obama? Its not his fault that Republicans in Congress were are not ready for a black President.
 
2013-04-08 11:40:13 AM  
I have an even better approach than raising the ceiling: a 1% tax on all capital gains above 100,000k, no increase in SS payments beyond the current max.   We'd fund social security for centuries.
 
2013-04-08 11:40:24 AM  

Saiga410: Ned Stark: No it wouldn't. We are all in this together. Making sure we don't have old people starving in the streets is a collective responsibility we all share. Cough up.

So increase the tax rate 2 and 2?


When it comes to finding more money in the budget, I personally favor skinning the Pentagon until they're throwing bake sales to gas up their Jeeps, but taxes can be fine too(depending on where they fall, natch)
 
2013-04-08 11:40:24 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.

And of course you are in favor of denying those who opt out any benefits what so ever if they end up not being rich when they are elderly, right?


I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.
 
2013-04-08 11:41:52 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: And you blame that on Obama? Its not his fault that Republicans in Congress were are not ready for a black President.


I blame Obama's response to the GOP on Obama, yeah.  He can't do anything about how the GOP treats him, but he has full control of how he deals with it.  And so far, all I've seen is pitiful, pathetic attempts to ingratiate himself to them when everyone knows they will never accept him.  Having Obama in the White House is like just leaving the damn Presidency empty and letting the GOP run the show.

I don't think the GOP would have been much kinder to Hillary, but I think Hillary's response would have been much more forceful, and we'd be better off for it.  Watching Obama play the part of Charlie Brown kicking the football makes my die a little inside every time I see it.
 
2013-04-08 11:42:18 AM  

Ned Stark: Saiga410: Ned Stark: No it wouldn't. We are all in this together. Making sure we don't have old people starving in the streets is a collective responsibility we all share. Cough up.

So increase the tax rate 2 and 2?

When it comes to finding more money in the budget, I personally favor skinning the Pentagon until they're throwing bake sales to gas up their Jeeps, but taxes can be fine too(depending on where they fall, natch)


I'd cut 100% of all military spending and quadruple all income taxes. We need to get this country debt free.
 
2013-04-08 11:43:39 AM  

TV's Vinnie: redmid17: Hmmm if Dems and Reps don't like it, there has to be a semblance of merit to the proposal
 WRONG!

It's such a gigantic stinking turdburger that it even makes a republican gag.


substantive response there
 
2013-04-08 11:45:05 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.


No. Hilary would have been beaten by McCain armed with over 20 years of right wing planning. We'd have Sarah Palin sitting behind Dick Cheney's old desk right now, writing up a new list of Americans to be rounded up for the crimes of everything from practicing witchcraft to whistling on a  Sunday.
 
2013-04-08 11:45:28 AM  

wjmorris3: Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.

And of course you are in favor of denying those who opt out any benefits what so ever if they end up not being rich when they are elderly, right?

I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.


Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution would like a word.
 
2013-04-08 11:46:54 AM  

TV's Vinnie: LouDobbsAwaaaay: I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.

No. Hilary would have been beaten by McCain armed with over 20 years of right wing planning. We'd have Sarah Palin sitting behind Dick Cheney's old desk right now, writing up a new list of Americans to be rounded up for the crimes of everything from practicing witchcraft to whistling on a  Sunday.


Yeah, that's why I said "Hillary as President" as opposed to "Hillary as candidate".  The election would have stood between her and the Presidency, but I just think hypothetically if she were swapped out with Obama as President we'd all be much better off.  Obama doesn't have the ability to deal with the GOP that he needs in order to be President :/
 
2013-04-08 11:47:58 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TV's Vinnie: LouDobbsAwaaaay: I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.

No. Hilary would have been beaten by McCain armed with over 20 years of right wing planning. We'd have Sarah Palin sitting behind Dick Cheney's old desk right now, writing up a new list of Americans to be rounded up for the crimes of everything from practicing witchcraft to whistling on a  Sunday.

Yeah, that's why I said "Hillary as President" as opposed to "Hillary as candidate".


If Hillary as candidate couldn't win, then any discussion about her a President is moot.
 
2013-04-08 11:48:05 AM  

wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.


files.myopera.com
 
2013-04-08 11:49:05 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.


I don't think so. Remember the way she backed down on universal health care when her hubby waste president?

I would have preferred a more liberal president but I don't think a more liberal president would have been more successful either.

Obama is fairly conservative and for the few non-racist conservatives - he spoke to them more than Romney did.

Ultimately - Obama has done a good job. Not great. But good.
 
2013-04-08 11:51:30 AM  

TV's Vinnie: If Hillary as candidate couldn't win, then any discussion about her a President is moot.


I'm not going to have your argument just so you can declare victory.  If you think the discussion is moot, then stop responding.
 
2013-04-08 11:54:57 AM  

Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]


Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.
 
2013-04-08 11:55:40 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TV's Vinnie: If Hillary as candidate couldn't win, then any discussion about her a President is moot.

I'm not going to have your argument just so you can declare victory.  If you think the discussion is moot, then stop responding.


No it isn't

d33hzbufl2gyhz.cloudfront.net

I didn't think we were having an argument or that I was aiming for a "win". I was just stating the opinion as i saw it. Hillary would get clobbered by the right wing hate machine in any campaign she ran in. It's just a fact.

When the 08 primaries went Obama's way instead of to Hillary, you know that there was a chorus of "Oh f*ck what now?" coming out of every right wing think tank's meeting room. They had tons of attack research on Hilary, but hardly jack squat on Obama. That's why they were tossing everything from "socialist!" to "seekrit muslin!" in the desperate hope something would stick.
 
2013-04-08 11:57:31 AM  
http://imgur.com/r/QuotesPorn/9WT3v

The owners of Amurica are tired of paying for all of you takers.
 
2013-04-08 11:58:34 AM  

wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.


That's like saying we'd be thinner if we all just stopped eating forever. Your skeletal remains would be so svelte laying there on the ground!
 
2013-04-08 11:59:45 AM  

Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

This.


I'd do it.  The trick is, it then becomes "welfare" instead of "savings" in the minds of many.  Tough sell.
 
2013-04-08 12:02:16 PM  

wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.


That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.
 
2013-04-08 12:02:18 PM  

TV's Vinnie: When the 08 primaries went Obama's way instead of to Hillary, you know that there was a chorus of "Oh f*ck what now?" coming out of every right wing think tank's meeting room. They had tons of attack research on Hilary, but hardly jack squat on Obama. That's why they were tossing everything from "socialist!" to "seekrit muslin!" in the desperate hope something would stick.


And now, after a solid term of doing nothing but capitulating to GOP demands, followed by what appears to be a second term of exactly the same, it seems to me that I was wrong when I thought Hillary would be a worse President than Obama.  Obama's the one who could beat McCain, but ultimately Hillary would have been a better President.
 
2013-04-08 12:04:10 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

This.

I'd do it.  The trick is, it then becomes "welfare" instead of "savings" in the minds of many.  Tough sell.


Unfortunately, I don't know of any reform in which this wouldn't be the case in Republican spin.

Hell, we can't even talk about restoring tax rates without hearing that rhetoric.
 
2013-04-08 12:05:29 PM  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Meh, this is the version where he talks about Social Security too.
 
2013-04-08 12:06:34 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TV's Vinnie: When the 08 primaries went Obama's way instead of to Hillary, you know that there was a chorus of "Oh f*ck what now?" coming out of every right wing think tank's meeting room. They had tons of attack research on Hilary, but hardly jack squat on Obama. That's why they were tossing everything from "socialist!" to "seekrit muslin!" in the desperate hope something would stick.

And now, after a solid term of doing nothing but capitulating to GOP demands, followed by what appears to be a second term of exactly the same, it seems to me that I was wrong when I thought Hillary would be a worse President than Obama.  Obama's the one who could beat McCain, but ultimately Hillary would have been a better President.


The POINT is that McGovern would have been a better President than Nixon for example, but he didn't win so there's no point wishing for something that would never be allowed to happen.
 
2013-04-08 12:09:15 PM  

Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.


If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!
 
2013-04-08 12:12:49 PM  

TV's Vinnie: The POINT is that McGovern would have been a better President than Nixon for example, but he didn't win so there's no point wishing for something that would never be allowed to happen.


Again, I'm not going to follow you into a separate argument just so you can plant a flag and declare victory.  If you don't want to have this conversation, stop responding.  I'm not going to explain this to you again.
 
2013-04-08 12:22:57 PM  

wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!


Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?
 
2013-04-08 12:26:10 PM  

Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!

Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?


Only treasonous people foolishly believe that the government can spend money. Obviously, you're not a real American.
 
2013-04-08 12:34:50 PM  

Serious Black: CheapEngineer: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

[www.mediaite.com image 320x283]

\bs, and you damn well know it

Why is it a lie? An extra 1% of your income you contribute to SS starting today would have a much greater impact on when the trust fund goes kaput than if it started in 30 years.


It depends on your suggested solution. If it's cutting benefits for existing and future beneficiaries, then hell no. If it means getting higher wage earners to contribute more (and cleaning up the system), then yes.

Todays and Tomorrows SS recipients are not responsible for the mess that has been made of Social Security. Politicians who raided the trust fund, insurance companies who gouge the fund with inflated charges and fraud - *that's* who is responsible. Fix that before you start telling people that the contract we made with them 20-30-40 years ago is void because we don't feel like doing the work to keep our promises.

\thanks to all you @ssholes who laughed at Al Gore's "lockbox"
\\damn you all to hell
 
2013-04-08 12:40:44 PM  

King Something: TV's Vinnie: vernonFL: TV's Vinnie: It's a classic "frog in the boiling water" scheme

I know what you mean, but the "frog in water" story actually isn't true - if you put a frog in water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will jump out of the water when it gets uncomfortable.

No.

How about "lobster in water" instead? Lobsters generally don't jump like frogs.


They also don't jump out if you just drop them in the water.
 
2013-04-08 12:41:49 PM  

CheapEngineer: Todays and Tomorrows SS recipients are not responsible for the mess that has been made of Social Security.


Social Security is not in a mess.  Its funding is, because of the deficit spending that ignored the fact that, eventually, SS was going to need to redeem all the Treasury notes it's been buying for many decades.  The program itself has been working as promised and remains quite popular.

Please do not contribute to the factually baseless meme that SS is a mess.
 
2013-04-08 12:54:26 PM  

redmid17: Hmmm if Dems and Reps don't like it, there has to be a semblance of merit to the proposal.


Those wankers in England drive on the left side of the road.  Meanwhile- idiots in America drive on the right side.  Clearly, the only answer is to drive straight down the middle.
 
2013-04-08 01:00:10 PM  

Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!

Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?


Damn, you guys are easy to troll.
 
2013-04-08 01:04:22 PM  
The social security system is not the mess the GOP makes it out to be but there is room to strengthen the system. It was established in 1935 and there have been significant changes in the variables like life expectancy which have not been accounted for. There were a few minor changes where if you wanted to work a few more years your payout was better but this was optional.
 
2013-04-08 01:12:28 PM  

Aarontology: Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Translation: Because the poor, the elderly, the veterans and everyone who has contributed to Social Security and Medicare should have to bear the brunt of the cuts, not the well connected businesses who depend on Federal dollars to keep going.

In other words, the continuation of wealth redistribution upwards cannot be interrupted, citizen. now grit and bear it while the programs you've paid into your entire life are gutted to make sure a defense contractor can keep making useless toys so that Congressmen and Senators can brag about bringing jobs to their districts and states.


What pisses me off about all this posturing around SS is the fact that it is an earnings capped tax.  Remove the farking cap, deficit reduction without hurting anyone and the taxed amount is now a 100% equal percentage.  Oh, but wait.. that means ultra wealthy would have to pay more to support the health and retirement of the citizens they exploited during their working years.
 
2013-04-08 01:16:20 PM  

Biological Ali: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!

Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?

Damn, you guys are easy to troll.


I assume everyone is 100% serious because the alternative is always questioning whether somebody is serious or somebody is trying to trigger my Poe's Law alarm.
 
2013-04-08 01:19:17 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TV's Vinnie: The POINT is that McGovern would have been a better President than Nixon for example, but he didn't win so there's no point wishing for something that would never be allowed to happen.

Again, I'm not going to follow you into a separate argument just so you can plant a flag and declare victory.  If you don't want to have this conversation, stop responding.  I'm not going to explain this to you again.


Or you'll do what?

Welcome to Fark.
 
2013-04-08 01:21:01 PM  

Saiga410: 47 is the new 42: heypete: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.

[mahler.ca image 292x256]

I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.

So that it could be sold not as a welfare plan but as a form of insurance or annuity.  If as the system is set up you would have to pay out very large sums to retired billionaires if your removed the cap.  You put a ceiling on the payout and remove the cap then you have effectively killed SS as it was designed.


True, but the system was designed assuming fair, livable wages that tracked to inflation, and the continuance of company pensions as a main form of retirement income for most workers.  Seeing as all of that is broken, SS no longer fits the system in which it lives.
 
2013-04-08 01:21:43 PM  

Serious Black: Biological Ali: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!

Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?

Damn, you guys are easy to troll.

I assume everyone is 100% serious because the alternative is always questioning whether somebody is serious or somebody is trying to trigger my Poe's Law alarm.


That has to be bad for your blood pressure.
 
2013-04-08 01:24:35 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

This.

I'd do it.  The trick is, it then becomes "welfare" instead of "savings" in the minds of many.  Tough sell.


Paying yourself back a percentage of money paid earlier in order to shore up your income during your golden years isn't welfare.  It's self-insurance.  SS is supposed to be an entitlement after all - you're entitled to the funds that you put in.

Welfare?  That's throwing money to fortune 500 companies that don't need it.

The fact that SS is now seen as welfare just shows how deluded the population has become, thanks to a feckless media.
 
2013-04-08 01:25:37 PM  

Ned Stark: Serious Black: Biological Ali: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!

Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?

Damn, you guys are easy to troll.

I assume everyone is 100% serious because the alternative is always questioning whether somebody is serious or somebody is trying to trigger my Poe's Law alarm.

That has to be bad for your blood pressure.


Unfortunately, it is. I've already had eighteen heart attacks, five strokes, three pulmonary embolisms, and a deep vein thrombosis, and I'm not even 30 years old.
 
2013-04-08 01:28:18 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

If you do that, because payouts are calculated based on what you put in it becomes a full-on wealth transfer if payouts are still capped, unless you start monkeying with payouts at the end (which I'm fine with). For example, if you put in 10.2% of $200k for 20 years, but only get "credit" for having put in 10.2% of ~$110k, you lose out on ($408,000-224,400=)$183,600 in benefits.

Granted, if you made $200k for 20 years, you should have a healthier retirement plan than $184k anyway, but is means-testing SS a popular solution?


It should be, anyway.  Set a minimum payout floor of 15% of your contributions.  The amount that a retiree gets back begins to ratchet down as their other retirement (from ALL sources) goes up, starting at the 100K level.  When you pass the $250K mark, you get the minimum 15% back.
 
2013-04-08 01:42:26 PM  

Serious Black: Biological Ali: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!

Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?

Damn, you guys are easy to troll.

I assume everyone is 100% serious because the alternative is always questioning whether somebody is serious or somebody is trying to trigger my Poe's Law alarm.


And a wise decision that is, because I am completely serious.
 
2013-04-08 01:57:11 PM  

wjmorris3: And a wise decision that is, because I am completely serious.



Nope. You overplayed your hand already.
 
2013-04-08 02:15:09 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Saiga410: 47 is the new 42: heypete: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.

[mahler.ca image 292x256]

I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.

So that it could be sold not as a welfare plan but as a form of insurance or annuity.  If as the system is set up you would have to pay out very large sums to retired billionaires if your removed the cap.  You put a ceiling on the payout and remove the cap then you have effectively killed SS as it was designed.

True, but the system was designed assuming fair, livable wages that tracked to inflation, and the continuance of company pensions as a main form of retirement income for most workers.  Seeing as all of that is broken, SS no longer fits the system in which it lives.


The whole system is designed around the assumption "You're too stupid to plan for your own retirement, whereas we, the government, always know what's best for you."
 
2013-04-08 02:19:51 PM  

Splish: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Saiga410: 47 is the new 42: heypete: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.

[mahler.ca image 292x256]

I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.

So that it could be sold not as a welfare plan but as a form of insurance or annuity.  If as the system is set up you would have to pay out very large sums to retired billionaires if your removed the cap.  You put a ceiling on the payout and remove the cap then you have effectively killed SS as it was designed.

True, but the system was designed assuming fair, livable wages that tracked to inflation, and the continuance of company pensions as a main form of retirement income for most workers.  Seeing as all of that is broken, SS no longer fits the system in which it lives.

The whole system is designed around the assumption "You're too stupid to plan for your own retirement, whereas we, the government, always know what's best for you."


Well at least the first half of that is true
 
2013-04-08 02:25:04 PM  

Splish: The whole system is designed around the assumption "You're too stupid to plan for your own retirement, whereas we, the government, always know what's best for you."


The system was designed at a time when people were too stupid (or short-sighted, or simply poor) to plan for their own retirement. That there are still people around today who very much use it for that purpose (or as 1/2 their retirement income) suggests that we should not be ending SS just yet.

And the current recession's effects on 401(k)s may be an informative lesson about using the private sector's preferred means to plan for retirement. (Generally, if it's well-fed and a recession doesn't hit right as you shift into retirement-planning mode, you'll be OK. Generally, and with those ifs.)

// let me guess - you're a libertarian/objectivist who thinks old people should just subsist on Alpo - or just die, preferably somewhere out-of-the-way - if they couldn't afford a 401(k)/IRA
 
2013-04-08 02:29:03 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Welcome to Fark.


At some point, this phrase became shorthand for "I have nothing, so I'm just going to make my being an idiot your problem".
 
2013-04-08 02:32:57 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // let me guess - you're a libertarian/objectivist who thinks old people should just subsist on Alpo - or just die, preferably somewhere out-of-the-way - if they couldn't afford a 401(k)/IRA


Alpo?! What kind of high-falutin aristocrats did you come from where Alpo is low-class food? In my day, the poor ate grass and sticks, and by-gum, they ENJOYED it!
 
2013-04-08 03:01:17 PM  

Serious Black: In my day, the poor ate grass and sticks, and by-gum, they ENJOYED it!


Luxury.

We used to have to sneak into birds' nests wearing a feathered costume (that we hand-made from hobo corpses and crack vials) and hope Mama Bird would vomit in our throats.
 
2013-04-08 03:18:59 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Serious Black: In my day, the poor ate grass and sticks, and by-gum, they ENJOYED it!

Luxury.

We used to have to sneak into birds' nests wearing a feathered costume (that we hand-made from hobo corpses and crack vials) and hope Mama Bird would vomit in our throats.


Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."
 
2013-04-08 03:21:33 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TV's Vinnie: Welcome to Fark.

At some point, this phrase became shorthand for "I have nothing, so I'm just going to make my being an idiot your problem".


If you say so. You're a total stranger to me so it doesn't rustle a single Jimmy.
 
2013-04-08 03:21:52 PM  

El Pachuco: CheapEngineer: Todays and Tomorrows SS recipients are not responsible for the mess that has been made of Social Security.

Social Security is not in a mess.  Its funding is, because of the deficit spending that ignored the fact that, eventually, SS was going to need to redeem all the Treasury notes it's been buying for many decades.  The program itself has been working as promised and remains quite popular.

Please do not contribute to the factually baseless meme that SS is a mess.


I was merely working in the Fark framework of "SS is broken" to explain what little problems it has are not because it's underfunded/a drain on the budget.

\one brick at a time
 
2013-04-08 03:24:29 PM  

Serious Black: Ned Stark: Serious Black: Biological Ali: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!

Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?

Damn, you guys are easy to troll.

I assume everyone is 100% serious because the alternative is always questioning whether somebody is serious or somebody is trying to trigger my Poe's Law alarm.

That has to be bad for your blood pressure.

Unfortunately, it is. I've already had eighteen heart attacks, five strokes, three pulmonary embolisms, and a deep vein thrombosis, and I'm not even 30 years old.


FARK membership is a hard life, Son.
 
2013-04-08 03:27:43 PM  

Splish: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Saiga410: 47 is the new 42: heypete: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.

[mahler.ca image 292x256]

I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.

So that it could be sold not as a welfare plan but as a form of insurance or annuity.  If as the system is set up you would have to pay out very large sums to retired billionaires if your removed the cap.  You put a ceiling on the payout and remove the cap then you have effectively killed SS as it was designed.

True, but the system was designed assuming fair, livable wages that tracked to inflation, and the continuance of company pensions as a main form of retirement income for most workers.  Seeing as all of that is broken, SS no longer fits the system in which it lives.

The whole system is designed around the assumption "You're too stupid to plan for your own retirement, whereas we, the government, always know what's best for you."


Thanks for that statement. In polite conversation, I'm always on the lookout for a definitive indicator of what kind of asshole I am speaking with - that was a beauty.

\here's hoping everyone you know has been "smart enough" to cover all the possible bases
\\cause, it's so f*cking easy, if you just bother to try, amirite?
 
2013-04-08 03:29:08 PM  

Splish:

The whole system is designed around the assumption "You're too stupid to plan for your own retirement, whereas we, the government, always know what's best for you."


Great Depression?

Does that ring a bell?

No?

Or you'd rather shove your elderly parents out in the street to starve instead of let them live out their natural lifespans like actual human beings, is that it?
 
2013-04-08 03:29:16 PM  

Saiga410: Dr Dreidel: Serious Black: In my day, the poor ate grass and sticks, and by-gum, they ENJOYED it!

Luxury.

We used to have to sneak into birds' nests wearing a feathered costume (that we hand-made from hobo corpses and crack vials) and hope Mama Bird would vomit in our throats.

Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."


Well look at Mr. "we go to eat our poison straight" here. Did ya eat it off a silver spoon to? The only way we could cobble together a meal sized portion was to save up poison all week and stretch it by oohing it over the broken shards of glass from the vials it came in. Miller's cereal we called it. And we were damned thankful to have it too.
 
2013-04-08 03:43:09 PM  

Babwa Wawa: You know who else wanted to fully fund the SS?


THANK you!

/BREITBART WAS RIGHT!!
 
2013-04-08 03:46:59 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Splish: The whole system is designed around the assumption "You're too stupid to plan for your own retirement, whereas we, the government, always know what's best for you."

The system was designed at a time when people were too stupid (or short-sighted, or simply poor) to plan for their own retirement. That there are still people around today who very much use it for that purpose (or as 1/2 their retirement income) suggests that we should not be ending SS just yet.

And the current recession's effects on 401(k)s may be an informative lesson about using the private sector's preferred means to plan for retirement. (Generally, if it's well-fed and a recession doesn't hit right as you shift into retirement-planning mode, you'll be OK. Generally, and with those ifs.)

// let me guess - you're a libertarian/objectivist who thinks old people should just subsist on Alpo - or just die, preferably somewhere out-of-the-way - if they couldn't afford a 401(k)/IRA



Not at all.  I'm a fan of personal responsibility, and as such, with very rare exception, I've saved a portion of every paycheck I've ever received.  There are lots of ways to save money besides a 401k or IRA.  I also find it curious that the government puts so many restrictions on how its people can save money for retirement, while also insisting that it's so important that the government requires it, as long as it's through their system.  And honestly, if you can survive with the government taking 6 percent from your paycheck before you get it, you should be able to find a way to save that much if they didn't.

I've only seen two situations in retirement: People who prepare themselves and receive SS checks that they don't really need, and people who don't prepare at all--thinking SS will be enough and being really disappointed when it's not. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who has it figured out so well that they've saved just enough that without social security they'd be starving but with it they're comfortable.  It's either completely unnecessary or it provides a false sense of security.  I'm kind of reminded of the tampon commercial a couple of years ago that boasted an extra absorbent string--maybe you shouldn't plan on cutting it that close.

I also have a few friends and family members who can't reasonably expect to live to an age where they'd ever receive SS benefits (assuming of course, that SS is still functional in 40 years) or even disability.  I'm sure they'd much rather have an extra vacation each year than having the government sock it away for a retirement that probably won't ever come.
 
2013-04-08 03:55:03 PM  

CheapEngineer: Thanks for that statement. In polite conversation, I'm always on the lookout for a definitive indicator of what kind of asshole I am speaking with - that was a beauty.

\here's hoping everyone you know has been "smart enough" to cover all the possible bases
\\cause, it's so f*cking easy, if you just bother to try, amirite?


Not at all.  But SS isn't designed to cover all possible bases.  It's designed to dole out an allowance.  It's not like you can go to the SS office and say "You know, my car broke down/I need a new hip/my rent's going up... I'm going to need a bigger check for next month."
 
2013-04-08 03:57:02 PM  

Aarontology: Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Translation: Because the poor, the elderly, the veterans and everyone who has contributed to Social Security and Medicare should have to bear the brunt of the cuts, not the well connected businesses who depend on Federal dollars to keep going.

In other words, the continuation of wealth redistribution upwards cannot be interrupted, citizen. now grit and bear it while the programs you've paid into your entire life are gutted to make sure a defense contractor can keep making useless toys so that Congressmen and Senators can brag about bringing jobs to their districts and states.



almost..instead of gutted you should have said fleeced..all you wackado's like to say that
 
2013-04-08 04:04:15 PM  

Splish: Not at all. I'm a fan of personal responsibility, and as such, with very rare exception, I've saved a portion of every paycheck I've ever received. There are lots of ways to save money besides a 401k or IRA. I also find it curious that the government puts so many restrictions on how its people can save money for retirement, while also insisting that it's so important that the government requires it, as long as it's through their system. And honestly, if you can survive with the government taking 6 percent from your paycheck before you get it, you should be able to find a way to save that much if they didn't.


I notice there's nothing in there about what happens to the bad, evil, immoral person who fails to save - due to poverty, injury (though there's SS disability, which only healthy people pay into, for certain values of "healthy"), recession (I bet there are responsible 50somethings who lost everything the last 6 years through no direct fault of their own), or even bad planning. No one has perfect information about the future, and a big pile of money will correct for errors - if you don't have enough to cover what looked like a good investment decision going in, what then?

SS at the very least ensures you have income, regardless of market factors and investment decisions. To anyone who saved, it's a bonus. To people who didn't or couldn't, it's a lifeline.

// I'd love it if SS was an actual pension-type plan
// but I'd also love for pensions to make a comeback in general
 
2013-04-08 04:08:33 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Uzzah: 47 is the new 42: I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.

Because there is a maximum benefit. The person who pays into SS on a $10 million salary gets the exact same monthly benefit as someone who pays into in on a $100,000 salary. I'm not saying it's the most persuasive explanation, but that's the explanation.

A max SS benefit to a rich person is chump change. A max benefit to a old or disabled NON rich person is the difference between life and death.

I'd rather see the latter have a fighting chance to survive.


I'd rather see the latter devour the former.
 
2013-04-08 04:44:37 PM  

Aarontology: Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Translation: Because the poor, the elderly, the veterans and everyone who has contributed to Social Security and Medicare should have to bear the brunt of the cuts, not the well connected businesses who depend on Federal dollars to keep going.

In other words, the continuation of wealth redistribution upwards cannot be interrupted, citizen. now grit and bear it while the programs you've paid into your entire life are gutted to make sure a defense contractor can keep making useless toys so that Congressmen and Senators can brag about bringing jobs to their districts and states.


" a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.
 
2013-04-08 04:45:34 PM  

Splish: I've only seen two situations in retirement: People who prepare themselves and receive SS checks that they don't really need, and people who don't prepare at all--thinking SS will be enough and being really disappointed when it's not.


Then you've lived a soft life.  I'll give you my mother's example of "retirement":

One day my father fell off a ladder at work, and went to the hospital for an X-ray to make sure he didn't break a rib.  Long story short: he was diagnosed with a bone-marrow cancer, and spent the next three years dying in agony.  My mother's job wasn't enough to make the mortgage payment, and then she was fired on a bogus misconduct charge and denied unemployment (as were several other older women in the organization, just as the company was changing its business plan in a way that would require fewer employees).  Her COBRA insurance lasted long enough to diagnose a hip problem, but not long enough to get anyone to fix it.  How many women near 60 with a hip injury are going to get hired in this climate?  She eventually stopped looking, and managed to get disability.  Too old to be hired, too young for Medicare.  The bank took the house.  She's on a waiting list for low-income housing.  I fear that she'll kill herself before she's old enough to get into Medicare and be able to afford prescriptions for her emotional problems again.
 
2013-04-08 04:57:06 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Splish: I've only seen two situations in retirement: People who prepare themselves and receive SS checks that they don't really need, and people who don't prepare at all--thinking SS will be enough and being really disappointed when it's not.

Then you've lived a soft life.  I'll give you my mother's example of "retirement":

One day my father fell off a ladder at work, and went to the hospital for an X-ray to make sure he didn't break a rib.  Long story short: he was diagnosed with a bone-marrow cancer, and spent the next three years dying in agony.  My mother's job wasn't enough to make the mortgage payment, and then she was fired on a bogus misconduct charge and denied unemployment (as were several other older women in the organization, just as the company was changing its business plan in a way that would require fewer employees).  Her COBRA insurance lasted long enough to diagnose a hip problem, but not long enough to get anyone to fix it.  How many women near 60 with a hip injury are going to get hired in this climate?  She eventually stopped looking, and managed to get disability.  Too old to be hired, too young for Medicare.  The bank took the house.  She's on a waiting list for low-income housing.  I fear that she'll kill herself before she's old enough to get into Medicare and be able to afford prescriptions for her emotional problems again.


I am entirely serious when I say that I am sorry to hear that story, but at the risk of offending you, I have to ask one question.  Didn't your dad have life insurance? I carry 500k on myself and 250k on my wife and it only costs me about $30 a month and that peace of mind is worth every penny.
 
2013-04-08 04:59:20 PM  

theknuckler_33: Aarontology: Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Translation: Because the poor, the elderly, the veterans and everyone who has contributed to Social Security and Medicare should have to bear the brunt of the cuts, not the well connected businesses who depend on Federal dollars to keep going.

In other words, the continuation of wealth redistribution upwards cannot be interrupted, citizen. now grit and bear it while the programs you've paid into your entire life are gutted to make sure a defense contractor can keep making useless toys so that Congressmen and Senators can brag about bringing jobs to their districts and states.

" a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.


Except there's no single thing we call CPI. There's a whole host of CPI formulas that try to estimate inflation based on different assumptions. No single one of those formulas is "correct" because inflation affects each individual differently.
 
2013-04-08 05:04:41 PM  

theknuckler_33: Didn't your dad have life insurance?


No, he didn't.  But your spouse having life insurance doesn't constitute a retirement plan.
 
2013-04-08 05:04:41 PM  

Serious Black: theknuckler_33: " a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.

Except there's no single thing we call CPI. There's a whole host of CPI formulas that try to estimate inflation based on different assumptions. No single one of those formulas is "correct" because inflation affects each individual differently.


That's a fair enough point, and maybe I'm not entirely familiar with the details, but aren't we talking about a plan that will reduce the increases in future benefits? Don't you think it's a bit over-the-top to call that 'gutting' the program?  That's all I'm saying. I'm a little fed up with hyperbole of all stripes.
 
2013-04-08 05:07:10 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: theknuckler_33: Didn't your dad have life insurance?

No, he didn't.  But your spouse having life insurance doesn't constitute a retirement plan.


No, it doesn't, but it might have paid off the house or allowed her to downsize... or something. Again, I'm sincerely sorry.
 
2013-04-08 05:08:23 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Splish: I've only seen two situations in retirement: People who prepare themselves and receive SS checks that they don't really need, and people who don't prepare at all--thinking SS will be enough and being really disappointed when it's not.

Then you've lived a soft life.  I'll give you my mother's example of "retirement":

One day my father fell off a ladder at work, and went to the hospital for an X-ray to make sure he didn't break a rib.  Long story short: he was diagnosed with a bone-marrow cancer, and spent the next three years dying in agony.  My mother's job wasn't enough to make the mortgage payment, and then she was fired on a bogus misconduct charge and denied unemployment (as were several other older women in the organization, just as the company was changing its business plan in a way that would require fewer employees).  Her COBRA insurance lasted long enough to diagnose a hip problem, but not long enough to get anyone to fix it.  How many women near 60 with a hip injury are going to get hired in this climate?  She eventually stopped looking, and managed to get disability.  Too old to be hired, too young for Medicare.  The bank took the house.  She's on a waiting list for low-income housing.  I fear that she'll kill herself before she's old enough to get into Medicare and be able to afford prescriptions for her emotional problems again.


I'm sorry to hear that and sorry that I wasn't more clear in differentiating SS disability from plain old "You're old enough, here's some of your money we've been holding for you" SS.  The first is an important safety net that, while imperfect, does a lot of good in cases of unforseeable health conditions.  It's still no substitute for your own disability insurance.  The second is a really awful retirement plan that inevitably falls short.
 
2013-04-08 05:10:21 PM  

theknuckler_33: Aarontology: Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Translation: Because the poor, the elderly, the veterans and everyone who has contributed to Social Security and Medicare should have to bear the brunt of the cuts, not the well connected businesses who depend on Federal dollars to keep going.

In other words, the continuation of wealth redistribution upwards cannot be interrupted, citizen. now grit and bear it while the programs you've paid into your entire life are gutted to make sure a defense contractor can keep making useless toys so that Congressmen and Senators can brag about bringing jobs to their districts and states.

" a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.


You don't really need a "but" in between "I'm a liberal" and "Aw, come on, you're getting fancy feast". Its a pretty in-character sort of dodge.
 
2013-04-08 05:12:20 PM  

theknuckler_33: No, it doesn't, but it might have paid off the house or allowed her to downsize... or something.


The point is that there is more than "prepared for retirement too well to need SS, or floating along and assuming SS will solve everything".  Sometimes life hits you like a brick in the face, and you find yourself in a situation where you are "retired" not by choice, but by circumstance.  This is precisely the kind of thing that a social safety-net is for.  Without disability, she wouldn't even be eligible for SS at her age, and definitely would have killed herself by now, rather than be utterly destitute.
 
2013-04-08 05:13:22 PM  

theknuckler_33: Serious Black: theknuckler_33: " a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.

Except there's no single thing we call CPI. There's a whole host of CPI formulas that try to estimate inflation based on different assumptions. No single one of those formulas is "correct" because inflation affects each individual differently.

That's a fair enough point, and maybe I'm not entirely familiar with the details, but aren't we talking about a plan that will reduce the increases in future benefits? Don't you think it's a bit over-the-top to call that 'gutting' the program?  That's all I'm saying. I'm a little fed up with hyperbole of all stripes.


I wouldn't call it a gutting either personally. Switching to a chained CPI formula would do somewhere between jack and squat for bringing Social Security into sustainable solvency. I'd also say it's hard to complain about a policy when liberal think tanks like CAP and CBPP both endorse it with the caveat that benefits be boosted for those with the lowest incomes.
 
2013-04-08 05:30:20 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: theknuckler_33: No, it doesn't, but it might have paid off the house or allowed her to downsize... or something.

The point is that there is more than "prepared for retirement too well to need SS, or floating along and assuming SS will solve everything".  Sometimes life hits you like a brick in the face, and you find yourself in a situation where you are "retired" not by choice, but by circumstance.  This is precisely the kind of thing that a social safety-net is for.  Without disability, she wouldn't even be eligible for SS at her age, and definitely would have killed herself by now, rather than be utterly destitute.


Without a doubt and I didn't mean for my post to suggest I was saying otherwise.
 
2013-04-08 05:33:45 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: theknuckler_33: No, it doesn't, but it might have paid off the house or allowed her to downsize... or something.

The point is that there is more than "prepared for retirement too well to need SS, or floating along and assuming SS will solve everything".  Sometimes life hits you like a brick in the face, and you find yourself in a situation where you are "retired" not by choice, but by circumstance.  This is precisely the kind of thing that a social safety-net is for.  Without disability, she wouldn't even be eligible for SS at her age, and definitely would have killed herself by now, rather than be utterly destitute.


I'm genuinely sympathetic (and that's why I didn't respond to your "soft life" jab), but from what you're describing, they didn't have life insurance or disability insurance--despite relying on both incomes--or much in the way of retirement savings--despite being very close to retirement age.  What exactly were their retirement plans if not to rely on SS?
 
2013-04-08 05:35:05 PM  

Ned Stark: theknuckler_33: " a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.

You don't really need a "but" in between "I'm a liberal" and "Aw, come on, you're getting fancy feast". Its a pretty in-character sort of dodge.


I don't know what point you are trying to make, I just think Obama's proposal can hardly be characterized as 'gutting' the program as the person I quoted was suggesting. Its merits and drawbacks are still up for debate, I just think that characterization is hyperbole. That's all.
 
2013-04-08 05:42:09 PM  

theknuckler_33: Ned Stark: theknuckler_33: " a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.

You don't really need a "but" in between "I'm a liberal" and "Aw, come on, you're getting fancy feast". Its a pretty in-character sort of dodge.

I don't know what point you are trying to make, I just think Obama's proposal can hardly be characterized as 'gutting' the program as the person I quoted was suggesting. Its merits and drawbacks are still up for debate, I just think that characterization is hyperbole. That's all.


Except, as pointed out above, the costs people on SS face generally outstrip inflation. Meaning that it falls further and further behind. Sure, right now the cut feels mild but in two decades? Gutted.

Leaving aside that cutting social security benifits people have already paid for is stealing anyway no matter how little you steal.
 
2013-04-08 05:46:18 PM  

Ned Stark: theknuckler_33: Ned Stark: theknuckler_33: " a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.

You don't really need a "but" in between "I'm a liberal" and "Aw, come on, you're getting fancy feast". Its a pretty in-character sort of dodge.

I don't know what point you are trying to make, I just think Obama's proposal can hardly be characterized as 'gutting' the program as the person I quoted was suggesting. Its merits and drawbacks are still up for debate, I just think that characterization is hyperbole. That's all.

Except, as pointed out above, the costs people on SS face generally outstrip inflation. Meaning that it falls further and further behind. Sure, right now the cut feels mild but in two decades? Gutted.

Leaving aside that cutting social security benifits people have already paid for is stealing anyway no matter how little you steal.


So raise benefits for people at the bottom of the income spectrum by a modest amount. You'll still save some money while not knifing the poor.
 
2013-04-08 05:49:59 PM  

Splish: despite being very close to retirement age


They weren't.  My father was hit with this form of cancer incredibly early for it's particular form, and took several years to die.  The house went under in the following ten or so years, followed by several more years of sliding.  The savings accumulated by both earners were eaten by my father's cancer treatment first (health insurance denied a bone-marrow transplant and he fought them in court), then later by my mother's COBRA payments and having to cover her living expenses while getting no unemployment.  In addition, money was spent to fight the unemployment denial which also required legal council.  It's been about 12-15 years of trudging toward homelessness/suicide, with every year worse than the year that came before it.  Try to imagine how much it costs to fight cancer - I guarantee you that you won't even come close to the actual figure.
 
2013-04-08 05:50:56 PM  

redmid17: Hmmm if Dems and Reps don't like it, there has to be a semblance of merit to the proposal.


No it doesn't.

/Golden Mean Fallacy is my pet peave.
 
2013-04-08 05:50:56 PM  

Ned Stark: theknuckler_33: Ned Stark: theknuckler_33: " a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.

You don't really need a "but" in between "I'm a liberal" and "Aw, come on, you're getting fancy feast". Its a pretty in-character sort of dodge.

I don't know what point you are trying to make, I just think Obama's proposal can hardly be characterized as 'gutting' the program as the person I quoted was suggesting. Its merits and drawbacks are still up for debate, I just think that characterization is hyperbole. That's all.

Except, as pointed out above, the costs people on SS face generally outstrip inflation. Meaning that it falls further and further behind. Sure, right now the cut feels mild but in two decades? Gutted.

Leaving aside that cutting social security benifits people have already paid for is stealing anyway no matter how little you steal.


Perhaps. I'm just looking at this one idea in a vacuum, so to speak. Without doing anything, the program will be gutted far more in two decades than it will be by this proposal. That was my perspective But you bring up a valid point too. How about alternating current COLA adjustments with the CPI-chained COLA adjustments for 10 years combined with applying 1/2 the SS tax on incomes above the current cap to 2Xs cap and then 1/4 the SS tax rate on incomes from 2Xs cap to 4Xs cap and then see where we stand after 10 years?
 
2013-04-08 05:54:36 PM  

Serious Black: Ned Stark: theknuckler_33: Ned Stark: theknuckler_33: " a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.

You don't really need a "but" in between "I'm a liberal" and "Aw, come on, you're getting fancy feast". Its a pretty in-character sort of dodge.

I don't know what point you are trying to make, I just think Obama's proposal can hardly be characterized as 'gutting' the program as the person I quoted was suggesting. Its merits and drawbacks are still up for debate, I just think that characterization is hyperbole. That's all.

Except, as pointed out above, the costs people on SS face generally outstrip inflation. Meaning that it falls further and further behind. Sure, right now the cut feels mild but in two decades? Gutted.

Leaving aside that cutting social security benifits people have already paid for is stealing anyway no matter how little you steal.

So raise benefits for people at the bottom of the income spectrum by a modest amount. You'll still save some money while not knifing the poor.


That isn't the proposal on the table and the system isn't actually broke but other than those minor concerns you're bang on.
 
2013-04-08 05:58:38 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Try to imagine how much it costs to fight cancer - I guarantee you that you won't even come close to the actual figure.


My daughter was born a little over 2 months premature and spent 4 weeks in the NICU at Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia. The total bill from hospital and the physician's practice was in the neighborhood of $140K.

4 weeks of care... not even cancer.

I hear ya.
 
2013-04-08 06:09:05 PM  

theknuckler_33: My daughter was born a little over 2 months premature and spent 4 weeks in the NICU at Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia. The total bill from hospital and the physician's practice was in the neighborhood of $140K.

4 weeks of care... not even cancer.

I hear ya.


Yeah, stretch that out over three years, with an insurance company actuary deciding that the most you deserve is just enough Morphine to keep you from screaming until you finally die.  The tactic appeared to be to drag feet through the courts and hope he died in the mean-time, or just gave up.

The "soft living" I was referring to wasn't in reference to my parents' problems - I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.  It's the idea that you are actually prepared for anything that I see as a product of soft living.  At best, you're prepared for retirement so long as everything goes according to plan.  It's so incredibly easy for that to not happen, and unless you've seen it first-hand, you just don't know how fragile those plans are.  And unless you have old family money to draw on, once you are in free-fall, it's just a matter of time before you hit the ground.
 
2013-04-08 06:12:11 PM  
To argue that Chained CPI isn't "gutting" the program is stand by the assumption that Social Security as it stands now is overly generous to those recieving it.

If you're one of us who believe that the benefits are barely livable even before compounding lower COLAs over time then you're probably going to agree that Chained CPI will leave folks worse off in the long run.

However much Chained CPI "saves" in billions of dollars, it's by taking money out of the hands of folks who will need it for things like food or medical care.
 
2013-04-08 06:38:31 PM  
http://www.fark.com/comments/7687916/83494877#c83494877" target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7687916/83494877#c8 3494877">LouDobbsAwaaaay: Splish: despite being very close to retirement age

They weren't. My father was hit with this form of cancer incredibly early for it's particular form, and took several years to die. The house went under in the following ten or so years, followed by several more years of sliding. The savings accumulated by both earners were eaten by my father's cancer treatment first (health insurance denied a bone-marrow transplant and he fought them in court), then later by my mother's COBRA payments and having to cover her living expenses while getting no unemployment. In addition, money was spent to fight the unemployment denial which also required legal council. It's been about 12-15 years of trudging toward homelessness/suicide, with every year worse than the year that came before it. Try to imagine how much it costs to fight cancer - I guarantee you that you won't even come close to the actual figure.


Sorry, I misunderstood when you said your mom couldn't get a job because she's almost 60 that it was an obstacle when everything else was going on.  And I could give you several guesses how much it costs to fight cancer, based on my family's experiences.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: It's the idea that you are actually prepared for anything that I see as a product of soft living. At best, you're prepared for retirement so long as everything goes according to plan.


I'd argue that being prepared includes being ready for when things don't go according to plan.  If you're only prepared for your best case scenario, you aren't prepared at all.
 
2013-04-08 06:48:26 PM  
Do these people REALLY think that anyone except their stupid base (who need no further selling to hate the scary black man) are going to ever accept the idea that Obama, rather than the republicans, wants to cut SS or medicare. GIVE IT UP ALREADY it is never going to work, however often you repeat it or twist it.
 
2013-04-08 06:52:27 PM  
AntiNerd
// voted for O -- not deluded.

Okay, so what are you doing to bring about change that would actually be remotely sufficient?


LouDobbsAwaaaay
I think if Hillary were elected instead of Obama, things would be better.

Holy farking shiat, how many times does this have to happen before you figure it out? No politician is going to change shiat. The only time things get better is when we organize to do it ourselves.
 
2013-04-08 08:47:47 PM  

RanDomino: Holy farking shiat, how many times does this have to happen before you figure it out? No politician is going to change shiat. The only time things get better is when we organize to do it ourselves.


Well get on it, Robin Hood.
 
2013-04-08 08:52:35 PM  

Splish: I'd argue that being prepared includes being ready for when things don't go according to plan.  If you're only prepared for your best case scenario, you aren't prepared at all.


You can't prepare for the bottom to completely drop out of your life.  If you get through your retirement without having to rely on SS, patting yourself on the back for a job well done preparing for your retirement is only part of the story.  The part you're leaving out is that you also had the fortune of not being utterly ruined by a relentless streak of terrible luck.  You can do all you like with the former, but the latter can still detonate those plans and put you in free-fall.  That's what SS is for, and if you don't need it then consider yourself lucky.
 
2013-04-08 09:20:44 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat


Translation:

"Gimme!"
 
2013-04-08 09:25:52 PM  

Blathering Idjut: To argue that Chained CPI isn't "gutting" the program is stand by the assumption that Social Security as it stands now is overly generous to those recieving it.

If you're one of us who believe that the benefits are barely livable even before compounding lower COLAs over time then you're probably going to agree that Chained CPI will leave folks worse off in the long run.

However much Chained CPI "saves" in billions of dollars, it's by taking money out of the hands of folks who will need it for things like food or medical care.


It IS overly generous. SS will be insolvent without changes in 25 years. Today's retirees, and those retiring in the near future, simply havent paid in enough to warrant the benefits they are expecting. If they had (and we were), we'd have enough revenuse to support SS and keep in going perpetually.

But we haven't adequately adjusted the rate/ age/ benefit to compensate for demographic changes and improvement in longevity.
 
2013-04-08 09:37:58 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Splish: I'd argue that being prepared includes being ready for when things don't go according to plan.  If you're only prepared for your best case scenario, you aren't prepared at all.

You can't prepare for the bottom to completely drop out of your life.  If you get through your retirement without having to rely on SS, patting yourself on the back for a job well done preparing for your retirement is only part of the story.  The part you're leaving out is that you also had the fortune of not being utterly ruined by a relentless streak of terrible luck.  You can do all you like with the former, but the latter can still detonate those plans and put you in free-fall.  That's what SS is for, and if you don't need it then consider yourself lucky.


You keep talking about free-fall.  It's only a problem if you haven't had the foresight to pack a parachute.  If your back up plan is "go on Social Security," I guess that's fine, but you really have no right to complain when it's exactly what you'd expect from a last resort.
 
2013-04-08 09:50:51 PM  
Social Security isn't an entitlement, asshole. I pay into SS every goddamn paycheck.

KMA
 
2013-04-08 10:12:48 PM  

theknuckler_33: Aarontology: Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Translation: Because the poor, the elderly, the veterans and everyone who has contributed to Social Security and Medicare should have to bear the brunt of the cuts, not the well connected businesses who depend on Federal dollars to keep going.

In other words, the continuation of wealth redistribution upwards cannot be interrupted, citizen. now grit and bear it while the programs you've paid into your entire life are gutted to make sure a defense contractor can keep making useless toys so that Congressmen and Senators can brag about bringing jobs to their districts and states.

" a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.


It already is tied to CPI - the proposal is to change how CPI is computed.  This just about covers the benefit gap after the SS trust fund runs out.  The "cut" everyone is talking about is a reduction in future increases.  It's the kind of tweak that is not very painful once enacted, but will be blown out of proportion by the chicken littles.

And by changing the official way to compute CPI, it also has direct reduction of TIPS debt.  So there is a tiny haircut to entitlements, and a tiny haircut to debt growth.  That it becomes serious money 25-30 years out is a good thing, as the decrease in growth of benefits will barely be felt, and in fact, won't even be remembered in 10 years.

Personally I'm very happy about this proposed change.  I am slated to retire in 2034 (I won't make it that far - I have lots of money that becomes available when I'm 59 1/2), and I'd prefer not to have 2 years of higher benefits followed by a cliff as the funding comes in around 70% of granted benefits.  With the change to CPI calculation I won't see such a drop off.

So yeah, you guys on SS now (sorry dad, mom) take a little cut now, I give up some entitlements later, but not as much as I would have under the current law.  I was facing carrying everyone right till I retired, then be told "tough shiat - not so much for you".

So I have no hope this will pass.  The money grabbing seniors today don't want to understand that SS is a pay as you go system - that there isn't an "account" with a balance like a savings account (I would seriously like to punch the PR guy who explained the SS system that way back in the day - my grandparents to their dying day didn't understand how SS worked, even though it was their primary source of retirement income - they always thought it was "their" money, not something society had decided to transfer from workers to retirees).  And the Republicans can't accept a cut to SS that was proposed by the "blah" man.

The only point is that serious proposals are dead on arrival in DC - for any number of reasons.
 
2013-04-08 10:29:43 PM  

Serious Black: theknuckler_33: Serious Black: theknuckler_33: " a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans. "

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm having a hard time considering tying COLAs to the CPI as "gutting" those programs.

Except there's no single thing we call CPI. There's a whole host of CPI formulas that try to estimate inflation based on different assumptions. No single one of those formulas is "correct" because inflation affects each individual differently.

That's a fair enough point, and maybe I'm not entirely familiar with the details, but aren't we talking about a plan that will reduce the increases in future benefits? Don't you think it's a bit over-the-top to call that 'gutting' the program?  That's all I'm saying. I'm a little fed up with hyperbole of all stripes.

I wouldn't call it a gutting either personally. Switching to a chained CPI formula would do somewhere between jack and squat for bringing Social Security into sustainable solvency. I'd also say it's hard to complain about a policy when liberal think tanks like CAP and CBPP both endorse it with the caveat that benefits be boosted for those with the lowest incomes.


You should check your math again.  It covers about 85% of the projected 2036 SS funding gap.  And since the depletion of the SS trust fund happens over a longer time, it can still cover that gap in 2036, and much further into the future.  Under the current law available funds for benefits drops to 70% of COLA adjusted program costs in 2036.  So instead of a 30% gap in benefits in 2036, you are looking at a 0% gap.  To me, that sounds just fine, since I'm eligible for full SS benefits in 2034.  Instead of major increases in funding required to meet program requirements, only relatively minor changes need to be made to make it long term solvent.  Although paid out benefits under the new plan would be 5% below current law, that's a hell of a lot better than the 30% haircut I'd be looking at when the trust fund got to zero.  That's a sight bit more that being between "jack and squat".
 
2013-04-08 10:34:53 PM  

Aarontology: Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Translation: Because the poor, the elderly, the veterans and everyone who has contributed to Social Security and Medicare should have to bear the brunt of the cuts, not the well connected businesses who depend on Federal dollars to keep going.

In other words, the continuation of wealth redistribution upwards cannot be interrupted, citizen. now grit and bear it while the programs you've paid into your entire life are gutted to make sure a defense contractor can keep making useless toys so that Congressmen and Senators can brag about bringing jobs to their districts and states.


They will agree to cut SS only if they can slip in another Freedom Amendment that helps Freedom Monsanto Freedom Corp. provide tasty Freedom.
 
2013-04-08 11:02:17 PM  

Blathering Idjut: To argue that Chained CPI isn't "gutting" the program is stand by the assumption that Social Security as it stands now is overly generous to those recieving it.

If you're one of us who believe that the benefits are barely livable even before compounding lower COLAs over time then you're probably going to agree that Chained CPI will leave folks worse off in the long run.

However much Chained CPI "saves" in billions of dollars, it's by taking money out of the hands of folks who will need it for things like food or medical care.


Did SS retirement cover medical?  I don't recall that.  Medicare does.  And Medicaid.  Yup, there is a medicare part B premium, but that is optional.  No, the cuts proposed are reasonable - about 5% for me when I retire.  The cuts I'm facing under current law is unreasonable - 30% of benefits will go unpaid in 2036 because the trust fund will no longer be in place to recover the excess FICA collected and passed to general revenues.  I'm eligible for benefits in 2034, so this is something of an issue for me.  That SS will pay out $150 less next year to a retiree receiving full benefits than under current CPI computation doesn't faze me at all.  Mom and Dad and grandma will just have to deal.  I'd have liked to have had a higher raise this year too.

And CPI computed in a particular way is neither a god given nor constitutionally protected right.  It's a formula cooked up by economists with an agenda - ie. politicians.  This one's too expensive - try another one.  Instead of biatching about reducing the increase in benefits over time, everyone should be damn thankful that extreme reductions in benefits from one year to another won't be necessary.  SS is not a vehicle to make you comfortable - it's to keep you from being homeless and starving.

Now for my worthless anecdotal data points:

I generally notice that the people biatching the most about SS not keeping up are people who haven't downsized their life after they retired.  Still sitting in the 4 bedroom house, still in a high cost of living area of the country (have to be - if they weren't in NJ I wouldn't know them), still expecting to be able to spend money like they did when they were working.  I put on a concerned face and say "Awww that so horrible" while thinking "What a stupid idiot".  Of 20 or so people I know who have complained in one form or another, only 1 is actually in a marginal state.  And I don't have much sympathy for him either because he stupidly kept his entire 401k in Lucent stock and rode that sucker into the ground, despite every person who knew him at all telling him to god damn diversify.  And he's only marginal - he does have a pension, though not a huge one.  SS does take him from borderline starving to getting by, but not living large.
 
2013-04-09 12:53:19 AM  
Social security seems like a scam to me. Why not just convert it into an added income tax and use the money to reduce the debt?
 
2013-04-09 01:51:57 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

Translation:

"Gimme!"


You know, for someone that claims to have an MBA and a CFA, and thus should understand macro vs micro econ, you sound a lot like this guy.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-09 10:38:08 AM  

Splish: You keep talking about free-fall. It's only a problem if you haven't had the foresight to pack a parachute. If your back up plan is "go on Social Security," I guess that's fine, but you really have no right to complain when it's exactly what you'd expect from a last resort.


Prayers from the Church of Soft Living.
 
2013-04-09 11:49:28 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Splish: You keep talking about free-fall. It's only a problem if you haven't had the foresight to pack a parachute. If your back up plan is "go on Social Security," I guess that's fine, but you really have no right to complain when it's exactly what you'd expect from a last resort.

Prayers from the Church of Soft Living.


Yeah, I let it go once.  This time, screw you and your "soft living." You know nothing about me or my life.  You want to know what my definition of soft living is?  It's when you go through life assuming that every thing is going to go your way, not making any plans or preparations for the unexpected, right up until the point where reality kicks you in the face.
 
2013-04-09 12:06:23 PM  

Splish: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Splish: I'd argue that being prepared includes being ready for when things don't go according to plan.  If you're only prepared for your best case scenario, you aren't prepared at all.

You can't prepare for the bottom to completely drop out of your life.  If you get through your retirement without having to rely on SS, patting yourself on the back for a job well done preparing for your retirement is only part of the story.  The part you're leaving out is that you also had the fortune of not being utterly ruined by a relentless streak of terrible luck.  You can do all you like with the former, but the latter can still detonate those plans and put you in free-fall.  That's what SS is for, and if you don't need it then consider yourself lucky.

You keep talking about free-fall.  It's only a problem if you haven't had the foresight to pack a parachute.  If your back up plan is "go on Social Security," I guess that's fine, but you really have no right to complain when it's exactly what you'd expect from a last resort.


And frankly, social security should not exist. Why not take all the SS money and use it to pay off our debt?
 
2013-04-09 01:19:01 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Blathering Idjut: To argue that Chained CPI isn't "gutting" the program is stand by the assumption that Social Security as it stands now is overly generous to those recieving it.

If you're one of us who believe that the benefits are barely livable even before compounding lower COLAs over time then you're probably going to agree that Chained CPI will leave folks worse off in the long run.

However much Chained CPI "saves" in billions of dollars, it's by taking money out of the hands of folks who will need it for things like food or medical care.

It IS overly generous. SS will be insolvent without changes in 25 years. Today's retirees, and those retiring in the near future, simply havent paid in enough to warrant the benefits they are expecting. If they had (and we were), we'd have enough revenuse to support SS and keep in going perpetually.

But we haven't adequately adjusted the rate/ age/ benefit to compensate for demographic changes and improvement in longevity.


It will not be *insolvent*, you ass. It just won't be able to keep up 100% of present coverage, *if unchanged*.

Of course, if people has stopped DICKING WITH IT then it would have been fine, because the administrators of the plan had planned for the large bump in baby-boomer retirees and had plans in place to adjust the system to handle it. That, and if a couple administrations worth of asshats had left the goddamn trust fund alone...

But then you wouldn't have a reason to whine, would you?

\constantly amazed why people *watch* Conservatives f*ck up a working system, then point at it and say "Look at that! It's all f*cked up - it has to GO" and people fall for it every goddamn time
 
2013-04-09 01:29:12 PM  

Splish: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Splish: You keep talking about free-fall. It's only a problem if you haven't had the foresight to pack a parachute. If your back up plan is "go on Social Security," I guess that's fine, but you really have no right to complain when it's exactly what you'd expect from a last resort.

Prayers from the Church of Soft Living.

Yeah, I let it go once.  This time, screw you and your "soft living." You know nothing about me or my life.  You want to know what my definition of soft living is?  It's when you go through life assuming that every thing is going to go your way, not making any plans or preparations for the unexpected, right up until the point where reality kicks you in the face.


I believe the issue here is that you don't seem to have the slightest stick of f'ing empathy for any other human. That may be the reason why your "F*ck you, I planned ahead, you're a lazy shiftless bastard" attitude grates on the rest of us. Your assumption that anyone else who doesn't have a full and total backup for their life is a negligent 'tard isn't in any way accurate, realistic, or even slightly charitable.

Personally, I'm gonna assume you don't realize how much of an ass you appear here, but I'm not sure you'd appreciate or understand the empathy.

\besides, this is Fark

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-09 02:06:01 PM  

CheapEngineer: Splish: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Splish: You keep talking about free-fall. It's only a problem if you haven't had the foresight to pack a parachute. If your back up plan is "go on Social Security," I guess that's fine, but you really have no right to complain when it's exactly what you'd expect from a last resort.

Prayers from the Church of Soft Living.

Yeah, I let it go once.  This time, screw you and your "soft living." You know nothing about me or my life.  You want to know what my definition of soft living is?  It's when you go through life assuming that every thing is going to go your way, not making any plans or preparations for the unexpected, right up until the point where reality kicks you in the face.

I believe the issue here is that you don't seem to have the slightest stick of f'ing empathy for any other human. That may be the reason why your "F*ck you, I planned ahead, you're a lazy shiftless bastard" attitude grates on the rest of us. Your assumption that anyone else who doesn't have a full and total backup for their life is a negligent 'tard isn't in any way accurate, realistic, or even slightly charitable.

Personally, I'm gonna assume you don't realize how much of an ass you appear here, but I'm not sure you'd appreciate or understand the empathy.

\besides, this is Fark

[upload.wikimedia.org image 380x366]


No, I have plenty of empathy and sympathy, but it wears thin when the story hinges on "I never thought it could happen to me" and "There's nothing we could have done differently," and somehow that's an indication that the system is broken.  "This safety net isn't as comfortable as I expected" isn't a very valid complaint in my opinion.  But I could let that all go, if not for the repetitive "soft living" comments.  Unless he knows me personally, he has no idea who I am or what I've been through, just like I don't know what he's been through outside of what he's posted here.
 
Displayed 172 of 172 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report