Posted on 10/14/2015 8:23:38 AM PDT by Fhios
(CNN) Mitch McConnell privately wants the White House to pay this price to enact a major budget deal: Significant changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for raising the debt ceiling and funding the government.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Exactly, but it’s not stupid from his point of view.
This is another dog and pony show for the conservative masses to give them the appearance the old GOPe RINO’s tried to do something and then cave on the debt ceiling being raised again!
The fight has already been lost since McConnell and ilk have already started they will not shut down the government under any circumstance. The only way McConnell and ilk could possibly win this game is if the Obama administration believed McConnell would actually shut down the government if Obama and company refused to give him what he wanted. But, because McConnell has already told Obama he will not shut the government down, Obama does not have to give McConnell a damn thing!
Yes Sir, this is a “Dog and Pony” show for the conservatives and the American people. Let's watch and see how many fall for it?
They can end it if they pay us back the money they took from us plus the interest we would have earned with that money.
That money probably wouldn't make me a millionaire but it would be a lot more than I expect to ever get back in monthly Social Security payments.
.
It’s not a contract. Contracts are agreements entered into voluntarily. The terms are negotiated by two non-coerced participants. Contract assumes that one has the right to not enter the contract. Try telling the government that do not wish to participate in their bankrupt, fraudulent retirement system. If you’re not free to negotiate the terms or refuse to sign the contract, it’s not a contract. It’s an order.
I hate bursting this bubble, but you should know the truth.
Social Security is not a contract. The government has no contractual obligation to pay you benefits. Their only obligation is political.
Congress can raise, lower, or even eliminate Social Security benefits at any time. The only recourse you have is to vote them out of office.
There's even a Supreme Court case regarding this. You can look it up: Flemming V. Nestor 363 U.S. 603
The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
You might want to note the domain name that cite is from: ssa.gov. So, this is not just some blogger's opinion.
In this context, an "entitlement" is "benefits provided by law". That's exactly what Social Security is, and the law can be changed.
I always get flamed for this, and I will tell you in advance: save your breath. Pounding your chest and stomping on the ground won't change the fact: you have no contractual right to Social Security, no matter how much you have paid into it. Congress can take it away at any time, albeit at their own peril.
Excellent post.
Raising the Medicare retirement age is pretty pointless.
If people age 65 aren’t getting Medicare, they’ll mainly be getting Medicaid or heavily subsidized PPACA coverage.
I think the main things that can be done for Medicare is with the drug program (Part D) and barring supplemental coverage for outpatient physical therapy and devices such as fancy wheelchairs. I would also move many drugs to OTC status.
As for Social Security, there is a relatively minor problem that needs about a 6% correction. This will have to be dealt with, but we shouldn’t lose an election over an eventually unavoidable issue.
The big problem is with Social Security disability. The disability trust funds is just about broke. However, there will be automatic benefit cuts, so it really is up to the Democrats to propose SS disability solutions.
What I would like to see for SS disability is employer hiring incentives based on VA style disability ratings along with benefit cuts starting May 1,2017 of 10% (or less if enough people are removed from the rolls). There would be no benefit cuts if you are:
1. drug offense free and
2. physically unable to operate an automobile or are legally incompetent
I would also like to see financial institutions barred from taking more than $10 in fees and other charges from a SS disability account in a calendar or statement month.
JMHO, I hate seeing SS & MC lumped in with the freeloading funds.
See my previous posting, just above this. Congress can end it any time, without paying you a dime.
That money probably wouldn't make me a millionaire but it would be a lot more than I expect to ever get back in monthly Social Security payments.
It WOULD make me a millionaire. This isn't even hypothetical based on stock market returns: I've done the calculations, using the same historical long-term US Treasury Bond rates that were earned by the Social Security Trust Fund over the past 40 years.
Your break-even point (present value of your future Social Security benefits, vs. cash in your pocket now) depends on how soon you start taking benefits. If you wait until age 70, you'll actually reach that break-even point at an earlier age, vs. starting at age 62. That's because you get an 8% increase in benefits for every year you delay.
However, I can't really tell you when your break-even point would be, because it also depends on your average income. If you are close to the median family income (about $50,000 per year) before you retire, the break even would be around age 85.
I think the cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security has been zero for the last couple of years. How much more of a reduction is he proposing?
No, "entitlement" is correct. See my previous post #25.
You can't change the law by "changing the verbiage".
Benefits are only connected to payments by the law. The law can be changed, or repealed entirely. You have no "right" to benefits -- only the promise.
If you blame Mitch, you are spinning your wheels. It is not his fault. he is what he is. The fault lies with the good citizens that put him in office. Blame them.
“Social Security...I am now 64. I...am now collecting.”
While it is sometimes necessary to do this, people should delay taking Social Security as long as possible prior to age 70 if they are in good health.
Prior to your official full benefit retirement age (mine is 66 years and 8 months) SS reduces your benefits by 8% a year.
Once your financial assets fall below $3,000 after age 60 (excluding IRAs and other retirement accounts) you can get food stamps (actually a SNAP card). This can often give you enough time to avoid getting an 8% SS benefit haircut.
Getting benefits at age 62 is very common for healthy people, but if you are likely to live to be 90 years old it can be an expensive mistake to take SS early.
Because Social Security is in trouble. Around 2034, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted, and benefits will have to be reduced about 23%, by law.
The reason it's in trouble?
It's not disability (SSDI) payments. That's a separate disaster: the disability trust fund is separate, and it's about to be exhausted on its own.
It's not SSI. SSI is administrated by Social Security, but is funded out of general revenue.
And it's NOT because anyone "stole that money". Every dime borrowed from Social Security is accounted for, and it's being paid back. But, it will all be paid back in 2034 -- and then there's nothing left.
OASI (Old Age and Survivor Insurance) is the largest part of Social Security. It's been obvious that it is in trouble for years, but anyone that dares suggest doing something is pilloried. We pretty much lost our opportunity to do it painlessly back in the 90's, and longer we wait, the more painful it will be.
The reason OASI is in trouble is simple demographics and economics: the projections back in the 80's were too optimistic. Add in the automatic CPI increases (started in the 70's), and you have a recipe for disaster.
The Social Security Administration has an entire webpage evaluating various alternatives. The only one that works for the long term is a massive tax increase, or an benefit reduction across the board.
“grandstanding to take the bite out of the eventual GOPe cave”
The combination of grandstanding and caving is extremely bad. It makes your base and nearly everyone else think you are incompetent.
If you are taking a political risk, you need to actually get a political gain in the end to compensate.
And don’t ever threaten an 80-year grandpa, only threaten say his profiteering wheelchair maker.
“If you blame Mitch, you are spinning your wheels. It is not his fault. he is what he is. The fault lies with the good citizens that put him in office. Blame them. “
N A I L E D
The only “idea” anyone should entertain from Mitch is, at the very least, his resignation from leadership. More properly he should resign his seat and disappear in abject shame.
Headline says ‘floats’ and I call this BS. McConnell doesn’t have any desire to fight the President on these issues and Obamas knows it. He also knows McConnell will not back up a fight with closing the government.
BS all the way.
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.