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 ...
But the most important and impactful one was phased in up thru 2027.
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.
The proposals you talk about are the proposals of cowards. "In 10 years, things are going to be different. Blah, blah, blah."
You don't seem to understand what is meant by saying that those 55 and older will not be affected by the changes. The law is implemented immediately. The same thing happened with the increase in the age for full SS retirement benefits.
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.
You cannot possibly be that dense. People 55 and older will remain under the old rules. For example, if they were to raise the age for Medicare to 70, what happens to those receiving Medicare who are 66?
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, you can really reduce costs by implementing a phased in program just like they did with the increase in the SS age for full benefits. It was law in 1983 and is still being implemented.
We can only go around this tree so many times. I can't get through to you so let's just agree to disagree. Bye.
That’s a simple solution that should apply to all taxes/spending. Not just SS.
When you can figure out the answer to that question, you will be a long way toward understanding why your fella's program is not designed to cut any expenses until a long way out. So, just keep working on that question and see if you can't figure it out.
One of the points of this article is that, for better or for worse, the American people do not want to cut senior benefits. Old people vote.
I hold a minority opinion in that I would like to see these benefits reduced now, perhaps by means testing. However, I recognize that I hold a minority opinion. I am not inclined to soften the reality of my position by concocting a phony scheme designed to look like something will change in 10 years because of my proposal.
Right now, people, particularly old people, don't want to cut senior benefits. And, they don't want to means test them because that would make it appear more obvious that they are on the dole. They want to pretend that they earned it all - Medicare, Social Security - all of it, even though they will receive multiples of what they paid into the system. And, the last thing the want is to be duped into thinking that if they receive a check in some fixed amount, they can get what they're getting now from the current program.
The time has come for politicians of courage to get honest about the situation. They need to tell the American people that they should either cut benefits or raise taxes, or both, NOW. Don't waste their time with cute schemes to change things 10 or 15 years down the road. Get some guts and make changes NOW.
I paid into it all of my life. They need to cut the military budget as needed to pay for it instead of sapping the nations strength to fight wars for corporations and globalists.
That doesn't help anyone at or near retirement age who had their money taken INVOLUNTARILY all their working lives. How about telling that to the Chinese, Saudis, billionaire bankers and others who VOLUNTARIILY loaned money to the government for profit? After all, that money is gone now too! Why does paying money the government owes them take precedence over taking care of our citizens whose money was stolen from us? Without having to pay the interest and principle on that 20 trillion paying SS wouldn't be a problem.
No need to answer. The globalist elites who own the politicians will always take care of themselves first, and screw the puny citizens of the USA.
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.