Obama Admits Again His Likely to Cut Social Security Benefits (generation, ethical)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by pknopp

There is no money in S.S. Politicians have squandered it.

Red Herring.

Whether the OASI, OADI, HI (Medicare) or SMI Trust Funds or full of "worthless IOUs," cold hard cash in the form of US Dollars, or Euros, or Swiss Francs or bars of gold makes no difference and has no bearing on anything.

I'll school you on the issue, which is that you haven't collected enough in insurance premiums to cover your payouts.

That Silent Generation was slammed with 520% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.

The Boomers suffered a 71% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.

What have Generation X and Generation Y done? Well, when they've taken a break from playing X-Box or texting, they've done nothing but whine and sob like a bunch of sissies.

Who would be stupid enough to believe that you could fund Social Security in perpetuity with a 1% payroll tax? Or a 6.2% payroll tax? The insurance premiums were periodically adjusted over a 40 year period from 1% to their present 6.2%, but the last increase came...

...22 years ago in 1990.

Blow Job Bill, Bush the War Criminal, and The Ultimate-God-Like-Poet-Nobel-Peace-Prize-Winning-Warrior-Boy-King dropped the ball and passed the buck, because they didn't raise either the FICA tax rates or the SECA tax rates.

So even if you had bars of gold sitting in your Trust Fund the story's end is real simple: You are not going to collect enough money in FICA tax revenues to cover your losses and the Trust Fund will be totally exhausted circa 2023-2025 and since you will not be collecting enough in FICA tax revenues, a cut of 28%-32% across the board to all beneficiaries will have to be made.....and those cuts will increase periodically to the point where Generation Y will only get 35% of their planned payout.

Originally Posted by pknopp

There will have to be some raising of new revenue....

Some?

Eliminating the wage cap on Social Security will not save you. Eliminating the wage cap AND raising the FICA tax rate to 9.2% will keep Social Security solvent through 2030, maybe 2035. Means-testing beneficiaries would allow you to extend that to 2040.

From 2040 on, you'll need a payroll tax of about 16% to fund Social Security through 2085.

Originally Posted by pknopp

...and cuts.

Cuts are like a drop of water in a big freaking ocean.

Cuts are not going to save Social Security. You're going to have to pick a cut-off point, like 150% to 200% of "poverty level and means-test based on that.

The problem is that by 2020-2025, means-testing because pointless because few if any beneficiaries will have a pension plan/401(k), personal savings and Social Security benefits that put them over the 200% poverty level range.

Does everyone get that?

Poverty level (for a single person) is ~$14,000 so 200% of poverty level is ~$28,000/year or $2,300/month.

The majority of Americans have no idea what stocks are, and do not know how to manipulate their 401(k) plans so in effect they are nothing more than glorified pass-book savings accounts. Their 401(k) plans plus Social Security might put them at 150% of poverty level.

Anyway if means-testing is implemented, look for life-style changes as older Americans "divorce" but live under the same roof so that both can maximize their benefits.

Realistically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Jaggy001

The system wasn't designed for a population of seniors who are living into their eighties. It will probably be in the form of increasing the age where you become eligible as has already happened in a number of European countries.

Wonderful.

A Red Herring and a Straw Man fallacy combined together.

The fact that people are living longer is irrelevant. What's relevant is that there haven't been sufficient increases in the FICA tax rate to cover the debt.

As far as retirement age, that is both a Red Herring and a Straw Man. Raising the retirement age will not prevent Social Security from becoming bankrupt 2023-2025.

As far as Euro-States, they retire at much younger ages with full-benefits. Retiring at age 60 and getting full-benefits in Europe is not the same as retiring at age 62 in the US and receiving a fraction of your benefits.

And lest anyone get stupid and spread more disinformation, when you retire at 62 and get a fraction of your benefits -- you do that for the rest of your life, meaning your benefits do not increase when you really do reach full-retirement age.

So if your full-retirement age is 67, and you start collecting a fraction of your benefits at 62, then when you have 67 years, your benefits do not increase to 100% -- you continue to collect a fraction of your benefits until you die.

Raising the retirement age will actually harm Social Security in the long-term. Why? Because they will simply file for Social Security Disability and start drawing full-benefits at age 62 or age 65 or age 67 instead of drawing a fraction of benefits.

You must also consider substitutes, ie alternative costs.

The simple fact of the matter is that the US cannot compete against developing-States.

It's also a fact that the US can no longer oppress develop-States to keep them from competing against the US (which was US Foreign Policy for decades).

The 99% is a matter of perspective. You consider yourselves to be the 99% and rail against the 1%, yet for more than 6 Billion people on Earth, the 99% of Americans are the 1% to them.

Just as you rail against the "transfer of wealth" from the 99% to the 1%, maybe you can stop and think about the rest of the world who rail against the "transfer of wealth" from the to you.

And there are very clear moral, ethical and legal differences here: you "99%-ers" voluntarily of your own free will gave your wealth to the 1%, but the for the 99% in the rest of the world, their wealth was stolen from them at gun-point and military force by you.

Anyway the point is there are no jobs and won't be for a long time.

So you can have the 62+ crowd work while the 29 and under-crowd don't work -- but draw welfare benefits, or you can have the 62+ crowd sit around and draw welfare benefits so the 29 and under crowd can work.

Either way, you lose, and you may end up spending more on welfare benefits than you do on Social Security.

You people need to educate yourselves on the issues, because there is no room for errors here, and if you make a mistake, you cannot undo it, and if you can, then it will cost you dearly.

Problematically...

Mircea

[padcrasher]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

So, whom are you going to vote for in the 2012 presidential election?

If I have an option on the Texas ballot, I'll vote for a green candidate or write in. I'm damn sure not voting for an economic libertarian who are just has harmful to middle class pay/benefits.

In rare instances, the left candidate is such a sell out, that rewarding bad behavior, will just ensure that your vote is taken for granted for Decades to come.

The Tea Party has influence far beyond their numbers because they don't just vote for "the better choice".

They are more than willing to hit the self destruct button in the short term if GOP candidates don't toe the line.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Natural510

If Republicans had agreed to cutting the bloated defense budget without also making cuts to SS & MC, the WH wouldn't have had to compromise. It's probably right there in the link you refuse to post.

Any body can play the " cut XXX game. How about NOT sending billions to Brazil for oil exportation?

How about stopping the massive waste fraud and abuse of ALL federal programs.

How about NOT giving money to companies that are proven to be bad risks, aka Solyndra etc.?

Maybe if the dems had been willing to sit down and try to work out a long term solution to SS when W. Bush tried to, we wouldn't be in such a problem.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by padcrasher

More gibberish.

If you have a problem with NYT's budget experts then post your credentials and start a point by point rebuttal using objective sources.

I'll hold my breadth.

I posted the numbers.

[padcrasher]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

Any body can play the " cut XXX game. How about NOT sending billions to Brazil for oil exportation?

How about stopping the massive waste fraud and abuse of ALL federal programs.

How about NOT giving money to companies that are proven to be bad risks, aka Solyndra etc.?

Both left and right base voters are willing to cut foreign aid, and cut waste.

The elites in this country making billions off these programs don't want that.

So you can go the liberal Dem route that seeks to make government better (these people are a minority in Congress) or you can go the GOP route that seeks to shrink government.

I can tell from your post, you've just bought into this anti-goverment storyline that all your problems will solved if we just shrink government.

If you do that, you'll have given the special interests even more power and influence because there will be nothing to stand in their way.

[pknopp]

I'll school you on the issue, which is that you haven't collected enough in insurance premiums to cover your payouts.

In a simplistic way I note that the money is not there and in a long winded way you note that the money is not there.

I note that to address our issues we are going to have to raise more money and make cuts. You note that we are going to have to raise more and make cuts.

Thanks for the lesson.

[earthlyfather]

Doubt you will get much in the way of rebuttal. Too much for most folks to comprehend and piece together. Thorough analysis, btw.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Red Herring.

Whether the OASI, OADI, HI (Medicare) or SMI Trust Funds or full of "worthless IOUs," cold hard cash in the form of US Dollars, or Euros, or Swiss Francs or bars of gold makes no difference and has no bearing on anything.

I'll school you on the issue, which is that you haven't collected enough in insurance premiums to cover your payouts.

That Silent Generation was slammed with 520% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.

The Boomers suffered a 71% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.

What have Generation X and Generation Y done? Well, when they've taken a break from playing X-Box or texting, they've done nothing but whine and sob like a bunch of sissies.

Who would be stupid enough to believe that you could fund Social Security in perpetuity with a 1% payroll tax? Or a 6.2% payroll tax? The insurance premiums were periodically adjusted over a 40 year period from 1% to their present 6.2%, but the last increase came...

...22 years ago in 1990.

Blow Job Bill, Bush the War Criminal, and The Ultimate-God-Like-Poet-Nobel-Peace-Prize-Winning-Warrior-Boy-King dropped the ball and passed the buck, because they didn't raise either the FICA tax rates or the SECA tax rates.

So even if you had bars of gold sitting in your Trust Fund the story's end is real simple: You are not going to collect enough money in FICA tax revenues to cover your losses and the Trust Fund will be totally exhausted circa 2023-2025 and since you will not be collecting enough in FICA tax revenues, a cut of 28%-32% across the board to all beneficiaries will have to be made.....and those cuts will increase periodically to the point where Generation Y will only get 35% of their planned payout.



Some?

Eliminating the wage cap on Social Security will not save you. Eliminating the wage cap AND raising the FICA tax rate to 9.2% will keep Social Security solvent through 2030, maybe 2035. Means-testing beneficiaries would allow you to extend that to 2040.

From 2040 on, you'll need a payroll tax of about 16% to fund Social Security through 2085.



Cuts are like a drop of water in a big freaking ocean.

Cuts are not going to save Social Security. You're going to have to pick a cut-off point, like 150% to 200% of "poverty level and means-test based on that.

The problem is that by 2020-2025, means-testing because pointless because few if any beneficiaries will have a pension plan/401(k), personal savings and Social Security benefits that put them over the 200% poverty level range.

Does everyone get that?

Poverty level (for a single person) is ~$14,000 so 200% of poverty level is ~$28,000/year or $2,300/month.

The majority of Americans have no idea what stocks are, and do not know how to manipulate their 401(k) plans so in effect they are nothing more than glorified pass-book savings accounts. Their 401(k) plans plus Social Security might put them at 150% of poverty level.

Anyway if means-testing is implemented, look for life-style changes as older Americans "divorce" but live under the same roof so that both can maximize their benefits.

Realistically...

Mircea



Wonderful.

A Red Herring and a Straw Man fallacy combined together.

The fact that people are living longer is irrelevant. What's relevant is that there haven't been sufficient increases in the FICA tax rate to cover the debt.

As far as retirement age, that is both a Red Herring and a Straw Man. Raising the retirement age will not prevent Social Security from becoming bankrupt 2023-2025.

As far as Euro-States, they retire at much younger ages with full-benefits. Retiring at age 60 and getting full-benefits in Europe is not the same as retiring at age 62 in the US and receiving a fraction of your benefits.

And lest anyone get stupid and spread more disinformation, when you retire at 62 and get a fraction of your benefits -- you do that for the rest of your life, meaning your benefits do not increase when you really do reach full-retirement age.

So if your full-retirement age is 67, and you start collecting a fraction of your benefits at 62, then when you have 67 years, your benefits do not increase to 100% -- you continue to collect a fraction of your benefits until you die.

Raising the retirement age will actually harm Social Security in the long-term. Why? Because they will simply file for Social Security Disability and start drawing full-benefits at age 62 or age 65 or age 67 instead of drawing a fraction of benefits.

You must also consider substitutes, ie alternative costs.

The simple fact of the matter is that the US cannot compete against developing-States.

It's also a fact that the US can no longer oppress develop-States to keep them from competing against the US (which was US Foreign Policy for decades).

The 99% is a matter of perspective. You consider yourselves to be the 99% and rail against the 1%, yet for more than 6 Billion people on Earth, the 99% of Americans are the 1% to them.

Just as you rail against the "transfer of wealth" from the 99% to the 1%, maybe you can stop and think about the rest of the world who rail against the "transfer of wealth" from the to you.

And there are very clear moral, ethical and legal differences here: you "99%-ers" voluntarily of your own free will gave your wealth to the 1%, but the for the 99% in the rest of the world, their wealth was stolen from them at gun-point and military force by you.

Anyway the point is there are no jobs and won't be for a long time.

So you can have the 62+ crowd work while the 29 and under-crowd don't work -- but draw welfare benefits, or you can have the 62+ crowd sit around and draw welfare benefits so the 29 and under crowd can work.

Either way, you lose, and you may end up spending more on welfare benefits than you do on Social Security.

You people need to educate yourselves on the issues, because there is no room for errors here, and if you make a mistake, you cannot undo it, and if you can, then it will cost you dearly.

Problematically...

Mircea

[Fear&Whiskey]

That's what depresses me about the American Democrats and it goes back to the Clinton era. The Republican Party have lurched so far to the reactionary right that the Democrat party is often deluged with focus group data that compels them to switch their attention away from core Democrat ideals and into more right-wing territory where the focus group data implores them that if they switch allegiances and stake out 'moderate Republican' territory there is far more ground to be gained in a volatile politcal climate there are legions of 'moderate Republican' votes up for grabs.

Which entices Democrats to neglect their core base or patronisingly portray genunely social-democratic policies as the whimsical ramblings of radicalism, thus playing to the gallery of MOR conservative presumption and ensuring ideology is increasingly marginalised as politics forever gets pushed in one direction only.

In the case of America it is either right or reactionary right on the ballot box. With Ron Paul a libertarian anomaly sadly steeped in the tedious hyperbole of market authoritarianism as democracy personified.

Obama will turn to Americans and discreetly tip-toe into the right-wing territory claimed by Clinton. This is what his party delegates want, it is what his fundraisers and big money donors want, what his southern based Democrats want as well and if principled Democrats don't like it? Well, what are you going to do? Vote for that freak show circus of a trainwreck that is the Tea Party and the lunatic fringe right?

No, didn't think so. Some choice. I personally would vote Obama. But with a very weary expression. No wonder cynicism and apathy are rampant which unfortunately only goes to strengthen the legitimacy of a very warped ideology and an increasingly corporatist state.

Essentially America is voting to retain the Chief executive of the man who represents the interests of America's wealthy elites or to replace him. Neither represent nor are paid by their donors to represent America as a whole sadly. But they certainly should be.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by padcrasher

Untrue, SS is a manageable long term deficit that could be eliminated by lifting the tax cap on high incomes.

You will, of course, also increase the SS benefits these high-income folks would get after they retire, correct?

Or are you just another blinders-on soak-the-rich leftist thief?

[bnepler]

Who is Barry Soweto? Barry Soweto for president.