POLITICO: Democrats feud over plan to fix deficits (Cut SS, raise age to 70-or both)

POLITICO ^ | October 9, 2010 | John Maggs

[maggief]

President Barack Obama’s already got problems refereeing his party’s bitter family feud over deficits.

And now, Alice Rivlin is about to make that job a lot tougher.

Rivlin is an influential voice in Democratic circles but has developed a reputation as something of a fiscal scold, who says government’s largesse isn’t unlimited. Obama picked her for his presidential deficit commission.

And right at the moment when liberals are telling the president to keep his hands off Social Security, Rivlin’s about to announce a plan to fix the deficit that’s expected to include some of her past prescriptions for the problem.

Cut Social Security benefits. Or maybe raise the retirement age from 65 to 70. Or both.

Rivlin insists that her plan, written by a private group of former government officials for release after the midterms, won’t put any pressure on the president or the deficit commission — but instead could nudge the president’s commission toward compromise.

[maggief]

Alice Rivlin's plan to fix the deficit would include cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age. | Reuters

[FrankR]

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Raise the age to 70? And let the theft continue? No! No more damn SS. Get rid of it already. It is asinine that we allow these demagogues to continue controlling the conversation.

Just give people back what they paid in and not a penny more. Indigent people at retirement age can go on welfare if they need assistance. We make up for the extra welfare recipients by drug testing all recipients. Problem solved.

[Paleo Conservative]

When SS was started, life expectancy was under 65. To be consistent, the retirement age should be 77.

[calex59]

The answer isn’t to stop it abruptly, it should be phased out and private accounts opened up for those that want to still be on the plan. It should not be mandatory.

[jerry557]

If you are under 45... say good-bye to every dime you put into that system your whole life. The SS fund will be bone dry by the time you retire.

[maggief]

“Rivlin insists that her plan, written by a private group of former government officials for release after the midterms”

This committee??

http://crfb.org/document/lets-get-specific-social-security

http://crfb.org/about/board

[benewton]

Sorry, it’s not that easy.

I’ve been forced to “contribute” since ‘68, and those dollars were a lot more valuable than the current issue.
And the interest I could have earned shouldn’t be just ignored.

Too, once forced to “join” the system, the system MUST carry out their end of the “deal”.

[sodpoodle]

****Just give people back what they paid in and not a penny more.****

SS has been forced confiscation from employers and employees. If workers (now 65) had invested those funds privately (as annuities) for the past 40 years - they would have a substantial nest-egg (not just what they ‘put in’)

[perfect_rovian_storm]

That’s fine. It should be done in an orderly manner for sure. But it’s an easily solvable problem if we would just simply stop letting the Democrats control the conversation.

Everyone’s known for 30 years that SS was bankrupt. Enough screwing around.

[datura]

Note to Dems:

To cut the deficit,

CUT THE SPENDING, STUPID!!!

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Oh, yes it is that easy.

We need to solve this problem for future generations and you’re going to whine about some hypothetical interest that you think you’re owed? You got screwed by the government. We all did. We’ve got to cut the cord sometime and whining about ‘interest’ isn’t productive in the least.

Maybe when the whole system is fixed, you can sue them or something.

[sourcery]

All funds ever paid out as Social Security benefits are and have always been Unconsititional. They are stolen property—stolen from the taxpayers. Every last penny must be returned, and is subject to confiscation as stolen property. The same applies to every penny of tax collected—it must be returned to those who paid it, or to their estates.

[Lurker]

Maybe when the whole system is fixed, you can sue them or something.

See Fleming v Nestor.

[jerry557]

Good luck ever getting that back.

This government is bankrupt.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

I understand that. That’s precisely the reason why we need to do exactly as I prescribed.

If we let them continue SS as it is, it will go bankrupt and nobody will get anything. This way, at least you get out what you ‘put in’.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

I know you can’t sue them. It’s just as silly an idea as demanding some kind of interest from the government.

[Walts Ice Pick]

Phase out Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over the next three to five years, repeal Obamacare, phase out all agricultural subsidies and welfare, cut off foreign aid welfare to other countries, take an axe to all federal departments (including DOD), and then see where we’re at.

[Lurker]

In a perfect world suing for a reasonable rate of return on all of this stolen money would be a very reasonable remedy for the harm that’s been done. I’d be happy if they gave me a lump sum refund, tax free of course, totaling all the money they’ve taken from me under the threat of force all these years.

[umgud]

At some point, the retirement age will likely be raised to 70, benefits won’t be cut, but there probably will be means testing. This seems a reasonable prediction of cowardly politicians.