John Adams Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I hope Obama has enough left in the tank to get some meaningful and sensible changes passed for Social Security. Though the Dems are already lining up to oppose cost reductions and increase taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/polit...3fiscal.html?hp Some liberals, however, already have begun mobilizing to oppose any changes to Social Security benefits, arguing that the program does not face an imminent crisis. A group called Social Security Works began forming in January, with financing from Atlantic Philanthropies, and is seeking alliances with other groups. Yet Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the moderate Democrat who is the House majority leader, gave a speech this month in which he called for the two parties to compromise on a mix of tax increases and benefit reductions to avert fiscal chaos. Among his options were proposals to gradually raise the retirement age for future Social Security recipients and to reduce benefits for those with high incomes. Early signs of disagreement have also been evident in the White House between members of the economic team, who generally favor addressing Social Security’s finances, and the political advisers, who resist it. The president’s debt-reduction commission is likely to force the issue, even though it is not required to report its recommendations to Congress until Dec. 1, weeks after this year’s midterm Congressional elections. “Whether or not the budget commission reaches a conclusion, and I think the odds have to be against that, Obama is going to have to say something about the long-term budget, and ignoring Social Security altogether is not politically possible if you want to do that,” said Henry J. Aaron, an economist at the Brookings Institution, who has defended the program against deep cuts or privatization but acknowledges that it is not sustainable without some combination of benefit cuts or tax increases.
/dev/null Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I got a funny feeling the next thing on the agenda is getting Cap & Tax thru the Senate
Joe Miner Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I hope Obama has enough left in the tank to get some meaningful and sensible changes passed for Social Security. Though the Dems are already lining up to oppose cost reductions and increase taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/polit...3fiscal.html?hp I'd love to see some thoughts as to how to ween our country off of it. But I'd love to see the Bills win the Superbowl as well.
Magox Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 It's politically much more popular to raise taxes on the "rich" than to cut funding and benefits from the entitlement programs. I think that's why you have to give a lot of props to Paul Ryan for not only having a plan that on paper would get us back to firm ground regarding deficits but for also having the balls to put it out there and propose a plan that isn't particularly popular.
Fastback Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I wish they would let me opt out. They could keep the 25+ years worth of contributions I've already made and I'll invest in the future as I see fit. I'm 42 now and at the rate that we're going, there's not going to be anything there when I retire.
keepthefaith Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I wish they would let me opt out. They could keep the 25+ years worth of contributions I've already made and I'll invest in the future as I see fit. I'm 42 now and at the rate that we're going, there's not going to be anything there when I retire. Chances are that if you are able to fund your own retirement the Dems will make sure your SS contributions go to somebody that needs the money more than you do.
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Chances are that if you are able to fund your own retirement the Dems will make sure your SS contributions go to somebody that needs the money more than you do. I've always had a fear that they would change your benefits based on how much you have accumulated in your personal retirement accounts. You've done a good job you get little or nothing. You've saved nothing, we'll take care of you.
IDBillzFan Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Chances are that if you are able to fund your own retirement the Dems will make sure your SS contributions go to somebody that needs the money more than you do. I believe they're already doing that.
John Adams Posted March 23, 2010 Author Posted March 23, 2010 I've always had a fear that they would change your benefits based on how much you have accumulated in your personal retirement accounts. You've done a good job you get little or nothing. You've saved nothing, we'll take care of you. Yep. That's how colleges award financial aid. I assume social security will be like that too. "Congrats on paying so much into the system for the last 40 years AND saving so much. Your reward for your fiscal responsibility and sacrifice is...nothing because the system has to support the slackers."
Adam Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Personally, I am for eliminating social security. Let people save for their own retirements. You may have to grandfather a few people in, but this could pay for the health care that was so desperately wanted. The major problem with social security is that it was never adjusted for increased life expectancy as it should have been and was turned into something it was never meant to be.
John Adams Posted March 23, 2010 Author Posted March 23, 2010 Personally, I am for eliminating social security. Let people save for their own retirements. You may have to grandfather a few people in, but this could pay for the health care that was so desperately wanted. The major problem with social security is that it was never adjusted for increased life expectancy as it should have been and was turned into something it was never meant to be. So person X with no retirement savings can't work anymore. What happens to him?
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 So person X with no retirement savings can't work anymore. What happens to him? Eaten by wolves, most likely.
Adam Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 So person X with no retirement savings can't work anymore. What happens to him? Why don't they have any savings? Whose fault is that? I can somewhat agree about the health care issue- you can suddenly get hit with illness that isn't your fault, but if you have been just spending everything and not putting money away, that's your fault. I can see going back to the old social security- which is two years prior to the end of the average life expectancy.
John Adams Posted March 23, 2010 Author Posted March 23, 2010 Why don't they have any savings? Whose fault is that? I can somewhat agree about the health care issue- you can suddenly get hit with illness that isn't your fault, but if you have been just spending everything and not putting money away, that's your fault. I can see going back to the old social security- which is two years prior to the end of the average life expectancy. I understand the anger and resentment about this guy but my question still stands. Mr. Smith (and let's just say 25 million other Mr. Smiths) is 75 and can't work anymore. He has no savings or social security. What happens to him? Tom's wolves response is interesting but not likely conscionable. So what's the realistic answer? I ask because I actually agree that I'd prefer to have my Social Security in my pocket than the system. But having created the system, how do we uncreate it? And what do we do with the Mr. Smiths?
murra Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I understand the anger and resentment about this guy but my question still stands. Mr. Smith (and let's just say 25 million other Mr. Smiths) is 75 and can't work anymore. He has no savings or social security. What happens to him? Tom's wolves response is interesting but not likely conscionable. So what's the realistic answer? I ask because I actually agree that I'd prefer to have my Social Security in my pocket than the system. But having created the system, how do we uncreate it? And what do we do with the Mr. Smiths? They could grandfather it.
Joe Miner Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 So person X with no retirement savings can't work anymore. What happens to him? I'd love to see a nation that had the community support and involvement to take care of it's own, and didn't need the corrupt and incompetent arm of the federal gov't crushing it with a pitiful excuse for assistance. But the wolves idea sounds good too.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I understand the anger and resentment about this guy but my question still stands. Mr. Smith (and let's just say 25 million other Mr. Smiths) is 75 and can't work anymore. He has no savings or social security. What happens to him? Tom's wolves response is interesting but not likely conscionable. So what's the realistic answer? I ask because I actually agree that I'd prefer to have my Social Security in my pocket than the system. But having created the system, how do we uncreate it? And what do we do with the Mr. Smiths? Federally funded Suicide Booths
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Federally funded Suicide Booths Soylent Green is People!!
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I'd love to see a nation that had the community support and involvement to take care of it's own, and didn't need the corrupt and incompetent arm of the federal gov't crushing it with a pitiful excuse for assistance. But the wolves idea sounds good too. Used to be that families and communities took care of their own (or didn't, as the case may be). I've never been quite clear why the whole "The government will, so you don't have to" attitude came in to being.
3rdnlng Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Personally, I am for eliminating social security. Let people save for their own retirements. You may have to grandfather a few people in, but this could pay for the health care that was so desperately wanted.The major problem with social security is that it was never adjusted for increased life expectancy as it should have been and was turned into something it was never meant to be. Right. That's what the poll numbers said.
Recommended Posts