Posted on 03/21/2006 5:56:45 AM PST by areafiftyone
See post # 774 re "make Congress"
I suspect it will be like the 1983 solution, which raised taxes and reduced benefits, including raising the retirement age to 67. SUMMARY of P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900) Social Security Amendments of 1983-Signed on April 20, 1983
If you read the 1983 legislation, you will see that it does far more than increase SS taxes. It raises the retirement age to 67. It makes it mandatory that all new Federal employees join SS starting in 1984. It eliminates windfall Social Security benefits for workers who are first eligible after 1985 for both a pension from non-covered employment and Social Security retirement or disability benefits.
"Social Security tax rates (which include the Hospital Insurance tax rates) for employers and employees will increase to 7.0 percent in 1984, {1} 7.05 percent in 1985, 7.15 percent in 1986-87, 7.51 percent in 1988-89 and 7.65 percent in 1990 and thereafter."
"Beginning in 1984, includes up to one-half of Social Security benefits as taxable income for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income, combined with half their benefits and any tax-exempt interest they may have exceeds $25,000 for a single taxpayer and $32,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. Benefits received by married taxpayers filing separately are taxable without regard to other income. Appropriates amounts equal to estimated tax liability to the Social Security trust funds."
"Changes the earnings test for beneficiaries age 65 and over so that $1 in benefits will be withheld for each $3 of earnings above the annual exempt amount, beginning in 1990."
"Raises the age of eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits in two stages to 67 by the year 2027. Workers born in 1938 will be the first group affected by the gradual increase. Benefits will still be available at age 62, but with greater reduction."
What happened in 1983 was a travesty and an act of cowardice by our political leadership. It was supposed to solve the problem of SS for another 70 years. Yet, 23 years later it is apparent that the system is unsustainable and something must be done prior to 2017 or we will be back in the same situation as 1983, i.e., more money going out then coming in. The retiring baby boomers and fewer workers per retiree make the situation much worse than 1983. We need a permanent solution to make SS viable. Personal accounts must be part of the solution to reduce the future USG liability, which now stands at over $12 trillion.
The reason more than 80% of Americans pay more in OASDI taxes than income taxes is that the SS income cap goes up every year faster than actual wages and a reduction in the income tax rates for families earning below $50,000. Approximately one-half of Americans pay no income tax at all. However, in reality, SS is an income tax under a different name. The revenues collected go into the general fund to be used for any purpose, albeit with commensurate IOUs placed into a mythical SSTF, which represents a liability to the USG and American people.
Of course it's not debatable. How do you debate a position that has no base in reality? Presidents don't write budgets, nor do they have a line item veto. You have couched your position in a manner that betrays total disregard or ignorance or both for the substantive issues of the subject at hand, so how could anyone have a debate with that?
Your second statement is equally weightless, and addresses the issues facing NO with the cognitive energies of spilt beer.
A little less hating, a bit more reasoning....
He did that ONE TIME!!! ONCE!! What else has he done that would convince any sober citizen that Africa is in fact a bigger priority for him than this country? For example, did he talk about it in today's presser?
You seem to be obsessed with aid to Africa. Fact is that millions have died there due to Aids and war over the past 10-15 years. As a decent human being, this upsets the President. It's sad that you can't see that.
He has been making a concerted effort, but the MSM is not spreading the message. In fact, they have been using it to attack Bush. SS reform is being portrayed as a way for the Reps to privatize SS and enrich Wall Street.
You refuse to understand the power the POTUS has. Reagan bypassed Congress and went to the people with his charisma and caused change. POTUS is the Chief Executive--a strong POTUS can make changes happen, even if he can't do it directly, he can get it done indirectly, if he was the right type of leader and used all the marketing skill and leadership at his disposal. A powerful POTUS has the power to do that; a weak POTUS does not do that.
You refuse to understand the political context of SS reform. Reagan had an opportunity to reform SS in 1983 when Congress had to start redeeming the worthless IOUs in the SSTF because more money was going out in benefits than coming in in revenues. Reagan went along with the bipartisan solution to raise taxes and reduce benefits. No amount of POTUS jawboning will work if Congress and the voters don't buy the message. Bush is having a hard time maintaining public support for our presence in Iraq.
Talk about no dog in that fight!
I hate to be the one to have to inform you, since a good conservative should know this, but the Office of Mangement and Budget is under the Executive Branch.
May I show you the last paragraph of the Fiscal 2007 budget (Overview)???
" As this Budget shows, we have set clear priorities that meet the most pressing needs of the American people while addressing the long-term challenges that lie ahead. The 2007 Budget will ensure that future generations of Americans have the opportunity to live in a Nation that is more prosperous and more secure. With this Budget, we are protecting our highest ideals and building a brighter future for all."
GEORGE W. BUSH
February 6, 2006
Seems to me that Geore Bush was the one who signed this.
You have a serious lack of knowledge on how the cogs and wheels spin in Washington, and also about basic US Government 101. When I went to grade school, they taught us this. Then again, I went to a private grade school, not a public one.
Of course he is talking to himself, look who he is in the room with. You don't honestly think the democrat press is actually listening to him?
No, they only listen when there is a dem pres, and Bush know exactly who is in the room with him.
I agree that Reagan didn't do enough in response to the Marine barracks bombing. However, it's inaccurate to say he never retaliated (while the Israelis and French bombed Iranian barracks). The USS New Jersey did shell Muslim militiamen and the entire Syrian high command in Lebanon was wiped out by a shelling while the Marines were pulling out. Also, Reagan ultimately used force against Iran, the country most responsible for the killing of the Marines, in the Tanker War of 1987-8. The US sunk half of Iran's navy and forced an end to the Iran-Iraq War. I consider that to be overdue revenge. When people tout Reagan's accomplishments, everybody forgets about this one.
Unfortunately, Vietnam was still on the back of the public's minds in 1983. Reagan thought in Cold War terms and gave a nationally televised address saying that the events in Lebanon and Grenada (as well as the Soviets' recent downing of the Korean airliner) were all linked since the Soviets supported the Syrian presence in Lebanon.
Not only human decency, but I have heard him and others in his administration talk about their concern that Africa could become a whole continent of "failed states" for terrorism to find safe haven if we don't head that off.
I submit we citizens have little idea what is going on behind the scenes in Africa, where we are trying to help stabliize the situation and get some allies there to keep the terrorists from taking over.
This ain't only about compassion, although it is about that, too.
Even if a veto was overridden, at least it puts on record Bush's view about spending. The fact Bush has increased spending the way he has and has never vetoed Congress' attempts to do their part shows that President Bush has a liberal style spending (socialist form of government) his priority.
Me too. Voting for Bush and Voting for Reagan. Two good things I did. :-)
Thank you Helen, for giving the President a chance to SHINE!
You just keep stepping in it, dont you.
Please provide your proof of this. I wont hold my breath, because it it ridiculous on its face. Why do you insist on making bogus claims?
Helen is a vicious anti-semite, among other failings, so she just had to bring Israel into the equation for going to war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.