Posted on 08/29/2015 7:34:15 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Republican presidential candidates. who have had to seek contributions from a handful of wealthy contributors, want to cut Social Security. Average Americans love the program; the superwealthy don’t.
Something strange is happening in the Republican primary — something strange, that is, besides the Trump phenomenon. For some reason, just about all the leading candidates other than The Donald have taken a deeply unpopular position, a known political loser, on a major domestic policy issue. And it’s interesting to ask why. The issue in question is the future of Social Security, which turned 80 last week. The retirement program is, of course, both extremely popular and a long-term target of conservatives, who want to kill it precisely because its popularity helps legitimize government action in general. As the right-wing activist Stephen Moore (now chief economist of the Heritage Foundation) once declared, Social Security is “the soft underbelly of the welfare state”; “jab your spear through that” and you can undermine the whole thing. But that was a decade ago, during former President George W. Bush’s attempt to privatize the program, and what Bush learned was that the underbelly wasn’t that soft after all. Despite the political momentum from the GOP’s victory in the 2004 election, despite support from much of the media establishment, the assault on Social Security crashed and burned. Voters, it turns out, like Social Security as it is and don’t want it cut.
(Excerpt) Read more at mysanantonio.com ...
Yes, you’re right of course. They may need to change some rules sooner than they want to think.
Not sure who you mean by “you” but presuming you’re talking about any conservative who wants to keep Social Security in its current form, you’re right.
By the way, with smoking declining from 40% of the public to 20%, that completely wiped out the benefit of increasing the retirement age on SS’s balance sheet. Just from cutting back smoking average life expectancy increased by 2 years.
It takes leadership, a bipartisan political consensus, and an engaged public to make such changes. It was done in 1983 when a joint effort between Reagan and Tip O'Neill to reform SS including raising the age for full benefits from 65 to 67. Full retirement age (also called "normal retirement age") had been 65 for many years. However, beginning with people born in 1938 or later, that age gradually increases until it reaches 67 for people born after 1959.
The 1983 SS deal also included the mandatory inclusion of federal employees for all new employees entering federal service 1984 and thereafter.
As I indicated there have been reform plans advocated by Ryan, Coburn, and others to change benefits for those 55 and under. But all these reforms are meant to save these programs. No one is advocating replacing them. And no one is advocating reducing existing benefits for seniors.
As I said, each generation in each society decides for itself how to distribute the goods and services that it produces. If we wish, we can pretend that we can make those decisions for people who will be living 50 years from now, but the reality is that we cannot.
Of course we can. What we do now affects their choices. When FDR introduced SS and LBJ gave us Medicare, they baked these programs into the cake for us and future generations. Our Constitution has shaped our country for more than 200 years.
You can pretend that we have distinct societies marked by various time periods, but we operate on a continuum that shapes our society on a daily basis. Medicare is 50 years old. Today's 20 somethings will be alive 50 years from now. We may still be trying to repeal Obamacare 50 years from now.
Any politician who tells you that he has a plan that won't become effective for 10 or 15 years is playing you for a sucker. He knows that those decisions will be made in 10 or 15 years and cannot be made now. In fact, it is because such a promise is meaningless that a gutless politician will make such a promise.
You must be joking. How many years in advance do we plan our military aircraft and ships? Our road systems? 10 or 15 years is nothing when a nation, state, or locality develop future plans. Hell, we have 30 year mortgages when you buy a house.
Do you have an examples of politician promises that are made 10 or 15 years in advance?
It is possible that the dollar will not be the world's reserve currency in 20 years. It is possible that no currency will occupy that role in 20 years. You can be pretty sure that the world is going to be a much different place in 20 years.
A profundity? Of course things change over 20 years, but that doesn't mean that you can't make decisions that will shape events 20 years from now. We are not passive actors waiting for events to shape us.
But, then as now, people will probably be pretty much the same. They will want more benefits and they will want to pay less.
LOL. And does that mean they will get what they want? How do you do that if you are bankrupt?
I want you to begin with a very reasonable assumption - no generation is going destroy itself to pay for the mistakes of prior generations. That isn't going to happen.
What is happening now? Who is paying for the mistakes of SS and Medicare? What say do those under 18 or the unborn have to say about today's decisions whether it is Obamacare or the Iran agreement? Again, generations are not discrete groups that can neatly be separated from the others.
Future generations will decide what to do with what they produce. It may not be as easy to borrow money. They may decide to borrow less. They may decide against sending troops all over the world. They may decide to pay old debts with cheaper dollars. They may decide not to pay old debts. They may decide to pay more taxes. Who knows what they will decide? But, they will decide and we can't decide for them.
Silly argument. What we do today may eliminate their choices and affect their lives. It is not a matter of us making decisions for them, but giving them an opportunity to have choices. Parents do the same thing for their children. What we do affects future generations. How difficult a concept is that? Previous generations gave us the Constitution, liberty, the Rule of Law, great wealth, the world's only superpower, the largest economy, etc.
As for our generation, you can see the choices being made. Go ahead and advocate that we cut senior benefits next year. Go ahead and advocate that we raise taxes next year. Do you really think you can get elected talking like that?
Phony strawman. Where did I advocate that? I said the exact opposite if you look at what I have posted. If we don't reform entitlements, we will go bankrupt. And many of us will be alive to see it. These programs are unsustainable. We will be forced to make changes and the longer we wait the more painful they will be. It is not a matter of if, but when.
Look what the generation living in the 1860's did to this country? They utterly destroyed nearly everything of value and hundreds of thousands of our most capable citizens. The generations that followed put things back together as best they could.
The Civil War was the legacy of the British colonies and the introduction of slavery. We are still living with the legacy of that decision today just like we are living with he impact of the Immigration Act of 1965, which changed the demography of America forever.
The story goes that as Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a woman asked him, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”
You need to read your own answer. You said, "As I indicated there have been reform plans advocated by Ryan, Coburn, and others to change benefits for those 55 and under." There is an example of a promise that in 10 or 15 years, we'll do things differently.
If it's a great idea, why don't they propose doing it now? They don't propose doing it now, because now means it must really happen. It's safe to promise that things might change in 10 or 15 years. But, things won't really change in 10 or 15 years unless people in 10 or 15 years want things to change. Anything that you promise now can be undone in 10 or 15 years. These guys know that.
You need to wake up to reality. No major politician of either party or of any philosophy is advocating reducing senior benefits now, the only time that they can change benefits. You suggest that these guys have a great idea, but that it wouldn't be a great idea for now. In fact, they can't change benefits in 10 or 15 years. They can't build a new house in 15 years now. They can just pass a law promising that the program will change in 10 or 15 years.
It's a lot of baloney. Show me a politician who wants to create a change that takes effect now. We can only control the things we do now.
You need to read your own answer. You said, "As I indicated there have been reform plans advocated by Ryan, Coburn, and others to change benefits for those 55 and under." There is an example of a promise that in 10 or 15 years, we'll do things differently.
If it's a great idea, why don't they propose doing it now? They don't propose doing it now, because now means it must really happen. It's safe to promise that things might change in 10 or 15 years. But, things won't really change in 10 or 15 years unless people in 10 or 15 years want things to change. Anything that you promise now can be undone in 10 or 15 years. These guys know that.
You need to wake up to reality. No major politician of either party or of any philosophy is advocating reducing senior benefits now, the only time that they can change benefits. You suggest that these guys have a great idea, but that it wouldn't be a great idea for now. In fact, they can't change benefits in 10 or 15 years. They can't build a new house in 15 years now. They can just pass a law promising that the program will change in 10 or 15 years.
It's a lot of baloney. Show me a politician who wants to create a change that takes effect now. We can only control the things we do now.
I can't believe you don't understand that. These are proposed bills that would reform SS and Medicare. The SS reform would not apply to those 55 or older. If passed, the law would go immediately into effect. It would be the law just like the 1983 change to SS.
If it's a great idea, why don't they propose doing it now?
Ryan did propose to do it now.
You need to wake up to reality. No major politician of either party or of any philosophy is advocating reducing senior benefits now, the only time that they can change benefits.
I said that. Why do you persist in this strawman?
It's a lot of baloney. Show me a politician who wants to create a change that takes effect now. We can only control the things we do now.
There were and have been specific proposals to do just that from Ryan, Price, Coburn, etc. And the Simpson-Bowles proposal drew bipartisan support. As I said, nohting will happen unless both parties put forth a proposal similar to what was done in 1983.
Your recognition of that fact is what convinces me that you are not genuinely confused about the fact that the real changes will not take place for 10 years (when those who are 55 become 65). I am convinced that you really do know that most people 55 and under do not yet receive Medicare benefits and that their benefits will not be affected until they are 65 (10 years from now). I am convinced that you really do know that.
And, the problem is that (as Ryan knows) we do not know and we cannot know what the state of the law will be 10 years from now when these people 55 and under become 65 and over. Anything Ryan passes today can be changed during that 10 years if the people now 55 and under should decide that they don't want the Ryan plan.
And, the fact that Ryan does not believe that people 55 or over will accept his proposal suggests that the people who are now 55 and under might very well decide that they too do not like his proposal as they get closer to the age of 65.
People who want to promise what the law will be like in 10 years contribute absolutely nothing to the solution of the debt problem. If senior benefits are too high, reduce them now. All else is baloney for suckers.
“Actual SS reform is self-immolation to any one who proposes it”
That is it in a nutshell. So I guess you are saying that you won’t vote for any pol that doesn’t pledge to abolish or reform SS? If not...you are no better than the rest of us. It hasn’t been an option before...nor is it now.
You need to get a grip. Nobody is stealing from you. The government is taking money that is intended for a specific reason. Be mad at them. I hazard to guess that no one really wanted the money confiscated any more than you do. But it has HAPPENED. This ain’t Madoff...it’s the US government.
Myself, I don’t believe that SS was ever constitutional. It needs to be reformed. But it HAPPENED. I couldn’t vote in the 1930’s Could you and would it have made a difference?
Quit calling people thieves. They are not. These threads make me see red. They offer no solution...just bit**ing.
You don’t get know how OLD so many 65 year olds were in 1935. My point is that SS is NOT meant as a retirement fund for people in good physical condition.
“These threads make me see red. They offer no solution...just bit**ing.”
The first step in the solution is being honest about where the money comes from. That’s my objective. We can’t even do that.
I know exactly where the money comes from. So “we” can do that.
It sounds to me like you are saying...you are taking my money...whaaa.. And the government took my money to give to someone else. Right now...today...it is how it is. If you want to change things...run for Senate or HOR. If you live in my state and have a good plan I just might vote for you.
In reality...all taxes are distributed as the powers that be desire. All that pork has to count for something. I hazard to guess that some of the taxes received from the government in my state came from Utah and Cali and Montana, etc. And vice versa.
The same holds true with SS and medicare. So what is your point?
“It sounds to me like you are saying...you are taking my money...whaaa.”
No, I’m saying be honest in understanding where the money comes from.
Because we don’t have enough to keep everything rolling along. That is a simple fact.
“If you want to change things...run for Senate or HOR”
Thats not how this is going to change. It’s going to change when we don’t have the money to pay everyone everything they think they are owed.
I explained to you how the 1983 fix of SS worked. It was phased in over a long time. Those who wish to reform the system realize that you cannot get political buy-in unless you give people an opportunity to plan on the changes. Those who are 55 or older do not have the same opportunity to do so as those who are younger.
I am convinced that you really do know that most people 55 and under do not yet receive Medicare benefits and that their benefits will not be affected until they are 65 (10 years from now). I am convinced that you really do know that.
I know that. If they decide to raise the age of eligibility for Medicare, those 55 or older would not be affected.
And, the problem is that (as Ryan knows) we do not know and we cannot know what the state of the law will be 10 years from now when these people 55 and under become 65 and over. Anything Ryan passes today can be changed during that 10 years if the people now 55 and under should decide that they don't want the Ryan plan.
You don't get it. Once it becomes law, it will be like the 1983 SS fix. It will be phased in. Again, forget about specific plans and focus on the fact that Medicare and SS are unsustainable as currently structured. They must be changed. It is not a matter of if, but when the reforms are made.
And, the fact that Ryan does not believe that people 55 or over will accept his proposal suggests that the people who are now 55 and under might very well decide that they too do not like his proposal as they get closer to the age of 65.
Whatever the reform is, they won't have a choice. It will be the law.
People who want to promise what the law will be like in 10 years contribute absolutely nothing to the solution of the debt problem. If senior benefits are too high, reduce them now. All else is baloney for suckers.
LOL. You are hopeless. The 1983 fix to SS proves you don't understand how real reform works.
Legislative History
SUMMARY of
P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900)
Social Security Amendments of 1983-Signed on April 20, 1983
Makes comprehensive changes in Social Security coverage, financing, and benefit structure. Following are major provisions of the legislation which incorporate the recommendations of the National Commission on Social Security Reform:
Covers under Social Security the following groups: (1) Federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984; (2) current employees of the legislative branch not participating in the Civil Service Retirement System on December 31, 1983; and (3) all Members of Congress, the President and the Vice-President, Federal judges, and other executive-level political appointees of the Federal Government, effective January 1, 1984. (See P.L. 98-118 and P.L. 98-369 for a modification of this provision. Also see P.L. 98-168 for a related provision.)
Covers under Social Security on a mandatory basis all employees of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations as of January 1, 1984. (See P.L. 98-364 for modification of this provision.)
Prohibits States from terminating Social Security coverage for State and local employees.
Continues eligibility for Social Security benefits for disabled widow(er)s, disabled surviving divorced spouses, and surviving divorced spouses who remarry after entitlement.
Increases benefits for disabled widows or widowers who become eligible for benefits before age 60.
Permits a divorced spouse age 62 or over who has been divorced for at least 2 years to draw spouse’s benefits whether or not the former spouse who is eligible for retirement benefits has retired or applied for benefits.
Provides a different method for computing widows and widowers benefits that will increase benefits for many people whose spouses died before reaching age 62.
Eliminates virtually all remaining gender-based distinctions.
Requires the Secretary of HHS, in consultation with the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee to report on the effects of earnings sharing plans and make recommendations concerning the time periods for implementing earnings sharing proposals.
Delayed the June 1983 cost-of-living adjustment until December 1983 (January 3,1984 checks) and provides for future adjustments payable in January rather than July of each year.
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.
Provides for cost-of-living increases based on prices or wages—whichever is less—if the trust funds fall below a specified level.
Advances scheduled increases in Social Security tax rates. 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.
{1} Subject to a credit of 0.3 percent for employees.
Increases tax rates on self-employment income equal to the combined employee-employer rates and provides credits against tax liability to offset part of the increase.
Accelerates to twice monthly the frequency with which States are required to deposit withheld Social Security contributions.
Reauthorizes interfund borrowing among the three Social Security trust funds for calendar years 1983 through 1987 with repayment by the end of 1989.
Provides for crediting the OASDI and HI trust funds at the beginning of each month with revenues to be received during the month and for special reports by the Boards of Trustees in the event the trust fund assets fall below 20 percent of annual expenditures.
Requires operations of the four Social Security trust funds to be shown as a separate function within the Federal budget for FY 1985-1992 and removes operation of the OASDI and HI trust funds from the unified budget beginning in FY 1993.
Required the Chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to appoint a panel to conduct a study concerning the establishment of the Social Security Administration as an independent agency.
Transfers to the Social Security trust funds from the general fund lump sum payments for: (1) the value of the additional Social Security benefits arising from pre-1957 gratuitous military service wage credits; (2) the amount equivalent to the combined employer-employee Social Security taxes on the gratuitous military service wage credits for the period from 1957-83; (reimburses the trust funds on an annual basis for employer-employee taxes on such wage credits for service after 1983); and (3) the amount of past and future OASDI benefit checks (including interest) that are not presented for payment within 6 months.
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.
Increases the delayed retirement credit in gradual steps from 3 percent for workers reaching full benefit retirement age (age 65) before 1990, to 8 percent for workers reaching full benefit retirement age after 2008.
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.
Requires the Secretary of HHS to conduct a comprehensive study and analysis of the implications of the changes in retirement age for those individuals affected by the provision for increasing full retirement age who, because they are engaging in physically demanding employment or because they are unable to extend their working careers for health reasons, may not find their work lifetimes are increased as a result of general improvements in longevity.
Suspends auxiliary or survivors benefits to aliens outside the U.S. for more than 6 consecutive calendar months unless the beneficiary had resided in the U.S. for at least 5 years and, during that period, the relationship of the beneficiary to the worker which is the basis for payment was in existence.
Extends the current limitation on payment of disability insurance benefits to convicted felons while in prison to include old-age and survivors insurance benefits.
Requires the establishment of a system under which the States can voluntarily contract with HHS to supply information derived from official death certificates to facilitate comparison with benefit program records in order to prevent payments from being made to deceased persons.
Requires the issuance of all new and replacement Social Security cards issued after October 30, 1983, on banknote paper.
The law made other changes in Social Security, Medicare and Supplemental Security Income. For instance, it provided for an increase in SSI benefit rates beginning with July 1983 by $20 for an individual and $30 for a couple. Future automatic SSI cost-of-living increases will be made in January.
Prepared by SSA’s Office of Legislation & Congressional Affairs, 11/26/84
So...you are telling me that you really don’t have a fix?
“So...you are telling me that you really don’t have a fix?”
You’re kidding right?
The proposals you talk about are the proposals of cowards. "In 10 years, things are going to be different. Blah, blah, blah."
Paul Ryan has no idea what our health care system will be like in 10 years. Do you really believe that there will be no changes to Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. between now and then?
If the idea is a good one, why wait for 10 years? In case you can't figure it out, the reason for the 10 year delay is that your fella can't sell the idea to people who receive actually Medicare or to people who will soon be receiving Medicare. So, he thinks he can sell it to people who aren't yet focused on the reality of Medicare in their own lives. And, he knows that in 10 years, everything is likely to be so different that it won't fit in with the rest of our system anyway. In short, he gets to pretend that he's doing something while in fact he's doing nothing. Your idea that in 10 years, the people "won't have a choice" would sound arrogant if it weren't so ridiculous. Of course, people will have a choice about the way that they operate their health care system in 10 years.
The only way to really reduce costs in a program is to reduce them now. And, your fella doesn't have the courage to even suggest that. So, excuse me for ignoring him like the rest of the country is ignoring him.
No I’m not. Maybe I should rephrase the question.
You don’t have a fix THAT WILL WORK?
“You don’t have a fix THAT WILL WORK?”
You probably should rephrase that again to:
“You don’t have a fix THAT 60 MILLION CHECK RECIPIENTS WOULD POLITICALLY SUPPORT?”
No, not when there are politicians involved that would demagogue the issue.
The financial solution is relatively easy - only pay out what you take in.
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.