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 ...
Do you have a link for that?
Two percent of what? Of FICA? Or of income? Big difference!
SS should be phased out. Citizens should be expected to save and invest for retirement. Taxes on investment should be eliminated.
Cotton heads of age without savings should, of course, be allowed to go on welfare.
Thanks for explaining the correct situation. Not that facts matter so much anymore. The laments have been repeated so often that most accept them as gospel by now.
The only other option would be to invest in something that would have a better return than non-negotiable T Bills. Maybe it could be turned back to the states and a Retirement Trust set up similar to the Teacher’s Pension Program - sure wouldn’t want anyone in Washington involved in investing retirement money.
Actually it’s not really a retirement system, come to think of it. It was set up as insurance. Best way to look at it is as a kind of disability insurance - in case something happens and you are no longer able to work - you would have some money coming in.
If this was a private system, the benefits and premiums would be adjusted annually based on actuarial data and benefit frequency. So the new policies would be different for each period of adjustment.
Since it’s Government, no such adjustment happens, and they have been able to promise much without worry knowing that there will be no accounting till down the road.
Meanwhile they are busy printing money which results in a cut in buying power, and is thus just the same as cutting benefits, but they can pretend you are still getting the same benefit.
It’s pathetic really. If they do nothing, it’s an automatic 25% cut when the Trust Fund runs out(approximately, IIRC).
Exactly so - Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance- was the name IIRC.
They didn’t expect most people to even live to age 65, but if they did, and were no longer able to work, at least they would have some sort of money to help them.
Another reason not to vote for Trump.
Actually, we just came back from socialist Copenhagen. Our 40+ year old driver told us that the retirement age for a gov’t pension in this socialist heaven is now 70 for all workers.
Two percent of what? Of FICA? Or of income? Big difference!There is no difference.
The employee half of FICA is a percentage of your gross income and the employer half is a percentage on your gross income up to about $90,000 gross earnings.
Actually, it wouldn’t be self-sustaining even if government didn’t rob the fund daily. But that hardly matters as long as the government is willing to borrow or print money to keep that free government cheese coming. And even though the reciepents would have been tremendously better off with private retirement plans, most Americans see any effort to reform SS as a threat to what they erroneously see as a free government xheck.
I agree also. I paid into this for 50 years. Never asked to never even got to hold the money they just took it. To my mind I involuntarily lent the Fed Gov this money at no interest. SSN is a loan repayment and I probably won’t live long enough to get all my money back
No it's not. Just because medical science is keeping people alive longer doesn't mean your body isn't breaking down, especially if you do physical work. I know first hand. Baby boomers getting older is a big part of why Social Security disability claims have skyrocketed. I know there's a lot of younger people claiming mental disability too, but most of it's older people with physical problems.
I don't know where you got that idea. It was always supposed to be a minimal retirement plan so that old people wouldn't be completely destitute. Then people could save or get a pension from work to supplement it so they could live comfortably. Taxing it or cutting it back for high income just punishes people for doing what they were supposed to do.
I tell you what, we’ll let you pay into it until you’re 65, then we’ll end it.
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.Have we ruled out stupidity? Social Security has become the bridge between working Americans and conservative poliltics -- anecdotally, my FB friends from throughout the political spectrum have shared various graphics regarding how SS isn't like welfare, and what's up with cuts to SS but not handouts to illegals? How about building the border fence, deporting illegals, reforming the federal tax structure, opening up drilling...
Take a hypothetical elected official. He is elected State Treasurer; works six years. Serves five terms in the US House of Representatives. Elected governor twice. Elected to US Senate three times. His pensions - ONE FOR EACH JOB. Granted, some may be small; but why four taxpayer funded pensions?
OH BTW, this is NOT a hypothetical elected official. He is Tom Carper.
Retirees fixed income should be tax exempt. It’s all most have and the pinch gets harder and harder with the advancement of Keynesian mandated inflation.
My understanding of the U.S. pension system is that he would get one pension for both the House and Senate.
The State is likely separate, but my guess is that he gets another pension for the state positions.
Do you have any evidence that he gets four pensions?
We have a federal system. The state governments and the federal government are not the same.
“I get it, I need it, I worked for it, without it,I’m F@@##@cked”
Let there be no mistake: what you “get” is somebody else’s money who needs it and worked for it, and quite possibly somebody’s work who hasn’t been born yet.
“I agree...I worked 51 years straight with no lapses in employment...I paid into it...I earned it...”
You paid a tax for 51 years, you “paid into” government. Your check is not income you earned, it’s somebody else’s money that they earned and is given to you.
Is there any wonder it is so popular?
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.