Obama and Pelosi plan to cut Social Security? (health care, wage, Mexican)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Speaker Pelosi differs from Obama on taxes, probes
Associated Press January 18, 2009
This innocuous headline might not get much eyeball time because frankly it isn’t the real story. The real headline should read “Pelosi; all options are on the table including cuts to Social Security and Medicare” which you wouldn’t find until you got the very end of an otherwise boring story and frankly with all the insane coverage given to the inauguration of the chosen one, the latter probably wouldn’t get much attention either.
So as we arrive “At the dawn of a new era in race and politics” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_rdp - broken link) Will someone please explain to me why cutting benefits is an option today yet four years ago when president Bush suggested privatizing a portion of social security (meaning those who are under 40) it was a distraction from the real plan which was to cut social security benefits? (other than the fact that now that Democrats hold all three houses of power they can’t blame anyone else for the abject failure of the two biggest socialist ponsi schemes in American history both created by Democrats)
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 01-22-2009 at 06:46 AM..
Reason: Copyright Violation
I believe that it is possible benefits may end up being reduced. However, I suspect the discussions will center around things like reducing the annual cost of living adjustment (also called a "diet COLA"), and possible means testing for benefits (either annual income or assets).
What they are not telling you is that they plan to cut benefits for future recipients; what they don't plan to cut is the payroll tax. Mathematically, they have promised more than they can pay. Catch-22 of the highest order.
The wealthy who have contributed the most will get means-tested right out of their benefits, resulting in an automatic 6.2% retroactive tax increase. Just watch!
Speaker Pelosi differs from Obama on taxes, probes
Associated Press January 18, 2009
This innocuous headline might not get much eyeball time because frankly it isn’t the real story. The real headline should read “Pelosi; all options are on the table including cuts to Social Security and Medicare” which you wouldn’t find until you got the very end of an otherwise boring story and frankly with all the insane coverage given to the inauguration of the chosen one, the latter probably wouldn’t get much attention either.
What the article ACTUALLY says... Pelosi said everything should be on the table, including benefit cuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardocobos
It was only four years ago that a Republican president in his 4th state of the union address suggested reforming the system that IS broke was accused by Democrats of stealing benefits?
Social Security is not broke, and while Bush never actually came up with an actual privitization plan, the bits and pieces of parameters that he did mention would have stolen 20-25% of what privatized workers thought their nest-egg would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardocobos
Will someone please explain to me why cutting benefits is an option today...
Sure. Medicare and Medicaid comprise a near-term liability that can't be met through general revenues alone, particularly now that Bush has created such a god-awful mess that taxes have to be cut in an attempt to keep the economy afloat at all. The real solution to the problems that these two programs face is health care reform, but that will take a while to do, and we need something that will gets us there. A mix of revisons that included reduced coverages for some services as a part of a comprehensive reworking of the payments system is a topic worthy of discussion. Which is all that's on the agenda.
Last edited by saganista; 01-19-2009 at 07:14 PM..
So as we arrive “At the dawn of a new era in race and politics†(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_rdp - broken link) Will someone please explain to me why cutting benefits is an option today yet four years ago when president Bush suggested privatizing a portion of social security (meaning those who are under 40) it was a distraction from the real plan which was to cut social security benefits? (other than the fact that now that Democrats hold all three houses of power they can’t blame anyone else for the abject failure of the two biggest socialist ponsi schemes in American history both created by Democrats)
If you say you're going to cut benefits, then cut benefits. But don't play some BS political shell game where you "privatize" things where the goal is to just cut benefits.
What they are not telling you is that they plan to cut benefits for future recipients; what they don't plan to cut is the payroll tax. Mathematically, they have promised more than they can pay. Catch-22 of the highest order.
The wealthy who have contributed the most will get means-tested right out of their benefits, resulting in an automatic 6.2% retroactive tax increase. Just watch!
Somebody give NMR a prize! You are right on the money. Also, in the future, when it comes time to hand out benefits, many who would not consider themselves 'wealthy' will find that in the eyes of our gubmint, they are counted among the rich and famous.
Somebody give NMR a prize! You are right on the money. Also, in the future, when it comes time to hand out benefits, many who would not consider themselves 'wealthy' will find that in the eyes of our gubmint, they are counted among the rich and famous.
So now we're giving prizes for people to come up with predictions? How do we judge?
Seriously, you realize that it's possible that the conservatives screwed the economy so badly that things that were previously off limits now have to be considered, right? It's not a problem if our politicians are not dogmatic and pig-headed, 'cause you know where that got us.
The wealthy who have contributed the most will get means-tested right out of their benefits, resulting in an automatic 6.2% retroactive tax increase. Just watch!
Average Effective Tax Rate of Social Insurance Taxes
by Income Band, 2005...
Top 1% -- 1.7%
Top 10% -- 4.8%
Middle 20% -- 9.5%
Lowest 20% -- 8.0%
Hold on there Sag, the tax is only part of the issue. Let's look at benefits payouts too (assumption is single individual age 65, retiring in one year, and a 2.5% inflation rate):
at $20,000 income - benefits are $11,632 at retirement (age 66)
at $40,000 income - benefits are $18,192 at retirement (age 66)
at $60,000 income - benefits are $23,263 at retirement (age 66)
at $80,000 income - benefits are $26,338 at retirement (age 66)
at $100,000 income - benefits are $29,413 at retirement (age 66)
As you can see, the benefits are already heavily skewed towards lower income. Those earning more today are already being significantly penalized in terms of payback rate as a percentage of earnings.
I just wonder if folks are aware of how severe the current process already is in terms of penalizing higher wage earners.
Moderator cut: discuss the topic, not other members
Anyway, this can't be right...for years, every election, the Dems come out saying that if Republicans win, old people will lose their SS. Just like how it's going to be Republicans who want to reinstate the draft. Until a Democrat comes out for reinstating the draft...then it's a good idea.
Or something like that, I don't know.
Last edited by katzenfreund; 01-19-2009 at 09:17 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
