Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
Here's my feelings on social security:
1. The math doesn't work. So wtf?
2. I don't need social security. I know a lot of people who don't need social security. And then I know a lot of people who need it and the system doesn't work for them.
2A. This might vary by company, but I've heard that at some Big Four accounting firms you can retire with a big pension after 30 years of service (so roughly age 52) and are forced into retirement circa age 62. I think of Big Four accounting as the paragon of a corporate white collar job.
2B. Contrast that to field guys I know whose bodies start truly failing them in their 40s to 50s, who don't get cushy pensions, and who aren't eligible for social security until at least age 62 (and most won't live past their mid-60s for a number of reasons) and if you hold out to take your full pension until somewhere around that time or age 65 or something it's an absurd amount of money.
3. Changing the retirement age does not work for people in 2B, and it's also only a stop gap in fixing the math (the equation inevitably breaks again at some point).
4. Taxing rich people more sort of works to fix the math, but it's actually quite a slippery slope towards unfeasible depending on the other variables in the equation.

So... isn't the obvious solution -- to quote Daenerys Targaryen -- to break the wheel? What is the goal of social security? If it's to allow everyone to retire comfortably, that seems dumb. That's just a bad goal. People with middle class jobs should be able to save for themselves. If the goal is to provide a social safety net for those who can't save for themselves... can't we come up with a much better system that is actually tailored to those people?
 
Last edited:

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I am for replacing the money that was "borrowed" from the trust fund over the years and doing nothing else. We have allowed politicians to rob us of our retirement savings for decades to win petty political squabbles and that is why SS is insolvent in the short term. Until that bill is paid any fix should not be on the backs of people who have contributed in good faith their entire working lives.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
What happens to all the contributions that have been made to that point? Going to be a whole lot of pissed off people when it ends. Who is going to pay for these elderly folks if nobody is contributing?

Eh, fuck 'em.* The whole thing is going bankrupt anyways right?

*Not really. I'd support a soft closing of the system. Anyone who has paid in for X amount of years (let's nominally say people age 40 and up) still gets all promised benefits. Below that, if you've paid in for Y years (nominally let's say age 30 and up) you get partial benefits. And so forth. But people below age 18 would be the first generation to not be entitle to any benefits whatsoever, and also not pay in. Obviously, this is a rough outline... but there are ways to make this math work.

While I am not against your idea, the truth is that most people are incapable of saving for retirement, some that have unexpected expenses that drain them towards the end, and some that are incapable of not spending (just look at all of the former pro athletes who are bankrupt) all of their money. Yes you want to give the people who made less then $x over their lifetime some money, but the truth is that Americans suck at saving and it would lead to a significant portion of people with little to no money in retirement which would be very harmful to the U.S. I am not anti your idea I just don't think that it would play out well in real life.

I just don't really have sympathy for anyone who over-extends and then "shit happens"... because you can design specifics social safety nets for those people who deserve them.

I'm only for scrapping social security if there are then different social safety nets instituted to cover the people that would need them.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Why not just get rid of social security and replace it with a program that is just a straight social safety net for the elderly who made less than $X in career earnings and were therefor incapable of saving for themselves.

I didn't think anyone under 50 actually counted on Social Security being there...but for argument's sake...

I like your premise...

I think Chris is exactly the right guy to have that conversation...entitlements need redone, and it takes a giant asshole to start that discussion...he is giant and pretty much an asshole...I like him.

I am of the opinion that those having raided the cookie jar committed a crime...no question in my mind. But, seeing as we hold no one on this planet accountable for anything, especially our civil servants, if we want to have manageable systems, its time to stop pointing, bitching, and hoping...and just get to fixing. The guy you want in front of that is the guy that goes in having no fear, or friends...
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
I didn't think anyone under 50 actually counted on Social Security being there...but for argument's sake...

I like your premise...

I think Chris is exactly the right guy to have that conversation...entitlements need redone, and it takes a giant asshole to start that discussion...he is giant and pretty much an asshole...I like him.

I am of the opinion that those having raided the cookie jar committed a crime...no question in my mind. But, seeing as we hold no one on this planet accountable for anything, especially our civil servants, if we want to have manageable systems, its time to stop pointing, bitching, and hoping...and just get to fixing. The guy you want in front of that is the guy that goes in having no fear, or friends...

So why is the solution to make seniors wait longer for benefits instead of raising the cap on payroll taxes? I pay a higher percentage of my income toward payroll taxes than someone who is making well into 6 figures.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
So why is the solution to make seniors wait longer for benefits instead of raising the cap on payroll taxes? I pay a higher percentage of my income toward payroll taxes than someone who is making well into 6 figures.

You're asking the wrong question. Why do we have a system at all that flat out does not work without drastic overhaul of tax rates or artificially decreasing the pool of people benefiting?

Towards the bolded... that seems irrelevant in the grand scheme of taxed income. With gross oversimplification for a second and assuming all income is actually being taxed as income... while that person might pay a smaller percentage towards payroll taxes they pay a larger percentage towards income tax, a MUCH larger overall gross to Uncle Sam, and an overall larger percentage of income-to-tax when you combine everything.

Again, this is assuming we're comparing apples to apples. The whole thing about loopholes and capital gains is an entirely different discussion.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
You're asking the wrong question. Why do we have a system at all that flat out does not work without drastic overhaul of tax rates or artificially decreasing the pool of people benefiting?

Towards the bolded... that seems irrelevant in the grand scheme of taxed income. With gross oversimplification for a second and assuming all income is actually being taxed as income... while that person might pay a smaller percentage towards payroll taxes they pay a larger percentage towards income tax, a MUCH larger overall gross to Uncle Sam, and an overall larger percentage of income-to-tax when you combine everything.

Again, this is assuming we're comparing apples to apples. The whole thing about loopholes and capital gains is an entirely different discussion.

I would argue that raising the cap is a rather quick and easy fix that many politicians aren't willing to do, simply because it would place a slightly higher burden on the wealthy. The Norquist crowd wouldn't allow it. But it's an incredibly regressive tax (along with sales tax) that is hardest on those who have a low or middle income. Raising the cap wouldn't have an effect on those brackets at all.

You're certainly right about how the tax code is supposed to work vs. how it does work, i.e., loopholes and capital gains issue. It's a discussion that needs to take place.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Yes. Raise the payroll tax cap, not the eligibility age.

Scrapping the Social Security payroll tax cap | TheHill

I would need to see the phase in / out schedule, but isn't what he is calling for a nice, healthy compromise? Secure benefits for the long-term for those who really need it and those who don't still pay into the program.

I like this for a few reasons:
1 - I don't like the idea of raising the taxes only because it gives the government more money to spend on things unrelated to SS. All the funds from running a surplus in SS were sent to the Treasury, who provided the equivalent of an IOU to the SS Trust. Problem is, when it comes time to payback those IOU's, the Government needs to either 1) Be running a surplus everywhere else in the budget to finance yearly SS deficits 2) borrow more or 3) raise taxes. Frankly, neither sounds appetizing.
2- There has been an unsettling increase of Disability payments thru SS that the government needs to fix before raising taxes. The following charts below tell the story.
SSDI-recession.png

SSDI-growth-drivers.png

SSDI-diagnoses.gif

We can thank Reagan for this. Early on, he put pressure on eliminating fraud in disability claims and it worked. Too well. Political backlash in Washington provided pressure and Reagan and Congress caved, signing into law SSDBRA in 1984. This law instructed the government to place greater weight on applicants’ own assessments of their disability, especially when it came to pain and discomfort; to replace the government’s medical assessments with those of the applicants’ own doctors; and to loosen the screening criteria for mental illness, among other things. I think we can agree the Mental Illness is probably a good thing (I am sure there is fraud there too unfortunately), but that is just a small portion of the increase as shown in the charts.
The other issue with disability is that the benefits of claiming disability have grown. The payout factors were supposed to replace most of your income prior to "injury", with some means testing. So, for the lower end earners would get most, if not all, of their income replaced. Here is the kicker........if you qualify for disability, you qualify for Medicare, regardless of age. Free insurance is a nice carrot. (Most of this disability information was from a special NPR investigation)
3 - For those making above the tax limit, I would assume most, if not all, would rather invest that money on their own. This promotes self reliance (which is a very good thing) and can generate additional tax revenue streams for the government (thru investment taxes, and economic activity from increased investment).
4 - Get people working again and pass freakin meaningful immigration reform that protects the SS trust and other government revenue streams. I am all for expanding the work force thru immigration, so long that there are protections of SS. It was just reported that the over 500K Dreamers were issues SS numbers and the IRS acknowledged these individuals can go back and claim refunds under the Earned Income Tax Credit for time they worked illegally — even if they didn’t file returns or pay taxes for those years. They can also now make claims for Disability. We need to ensure there are protections in place to prevent fraud from immigrants (even if it is a small %, the numbers add up)
5 - SS and disability needs to be robust enough for the people that need it. I am of the opinion that there is more than enough money raised and that thru proper means testing and disability reform, we could preserve the benefits for those who need it.

I applaud CC for what he is trying to do. He is brave enough to suggest something different even thou it may be politically difficult. We need more people like him who pursue the right thing, not the politically correct thing.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I would need to see the phase in / out schedule, but isn't what he is calling for a nice, healthy compromise? Secure benefits for the long-term for those who really need it and those who don't still pay into the program.

I like this for a few reasons:
1 - I don't like the idea of raising the taxes only because it gives the government more money to spend on things unrelated to SS. All the funds from running a surplus in SS were sent to the Treasury, who provided the equivalent of an IOU to the SS Trust. Problem is, when it comes time to payback those IOU's, the Government needs to either 1) Be running a surplus everywhere else in the budget to finance yearly SS deficits 2) borrow more or 3) raise taxes. Frankly, neither sounds appetizing.
2- There has been an unsettling increase of Disability payments thru SS that the government needs to fix before raising taxes. The following charts below tell the story.
SSDI-recession.png

SSDI-growth-drivers.png

SSDI-diagnoses.gif

We can thank Reagan for this. Early on, he put pressure on eliminating fraud in disability claims and it worked. Too well. Political backlash in Washington provided pressure and Reagan and Congress caved, signing into law SSDBRA in 1984. This law instructed the government to place greater weight on applicants’ own assessments of their disability, especially when it came to pain and discomfort; to replace the government’s medical assessments with those of the applicants’ own doctors; and to loosen the screening criteria for mental illness, among other things. I think we can agree the Mental Illness is probably a good thing (I am sure there is fraud there too unfortunately), but that is just a small portion of the increase as shown in the charts.
The other issue with disability is that the benefits of claiming disability have grown. The payout factors were supposed to replace most of your income prior to "injury", with some means testing. So, for the lower end earners would get most, if not all, of their income replaced. Here is the kicker........if you qualify for disability, you qualify for Medicare, regardless of age. Free insurance is a nice carrot. (Most of this disability information was from a special NPR investigation)
3 - For those making above the tax limit, I would assume most, if not all, would rather invest that money on their own. This promotes self reliance (which is a very good thing) and can generate additional tax revenue streams for the government (thru investment taxes, and economic activity from increased investment).
4 - Get people working again and pass freakin meaningful immigration reform that protects the SS trust and other government revenue streams. I am all for expanding the work force thru immigration, so long that there are protections of SS. It was just reported that the over 500K Dreamers were issues SS numbers and the IRS acknowledged these individuals can go back and claim refunds under the Earned Income Tax Credit for time they worked illegally — even if they didn’t file returns or pay taxes for those years. They can also now make claims for Disability. We need to ensure there are protections in place to prevent fraud from immigrants (even if it is a small %, the numbers add up)
5 - SS and disability needs to be robust enough for the people that need it. I am of the opinion that there is more than enough money raised and that thru proper means testing and disability reform, we could preserve the benefits for those who need it.

I applaud CC for what he is trying to do. He is brave enough to suggest something different even thou it may be politically difficult. We need more people like him who pursue the right thing, not the politically correct thing.

...Mhmmm, what he said.

having ceilings allows people to meet civic responsibilities, but yet incentivizes them to go make more money to reduce the impact to themselves...thats healthy. It also forces, or should force agencies to go through ACTUAL budget processes, and have mooring to requirements and not "do good" guidance which causes scope creep like a mutha.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
So why is the solution to make seniors wait longer for benefits instead of raising the cap on payroll taxes? I pay a higher percentage of my income toward payroll taxes than someone who is making well into 6 figures.

not really against or for a specific approach to dealing with the current program

...I think the entire program needs re-baselined for starters. The scope needs to be clean and clear. Eligibility needs to be dealt with, and the scope pretty clean and clear. Changes to eligibility interpretation need to be formalized. Need some sort of rapid action change process from executive with limits so it can be responsive, but not long-term divorced from the budget/scope (ie irresponsible). Needs some higher standards for long term change...ie in order to change these programs fundamentally, or increase the scope long term...2/3 vote from congress, and a budget neutral analysis from CBO...ie take the money from somewhere else, or show out year savings according to max 5 year ROI. Things that make the administration of these programs according to real budget projections at least possible. Congress operates in a place where there are no controls, and that has proven untenable, so to me each program needs re-baselined, and controls to nail it down.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
3,260
I would need to see the phase in / out schedule, but isn't what he is calling for a nice, healthy compromise? Secure benefits for the long-term for those who really need it and those who don't still pay into the program.

I like this for a few reasons:
1 - I don't like the idea of raising the taxes only because it gives the government more money to spend on things unrelated to SS. All the funds from running a surplus in SS were sent to the Treasury, who provided the equivalent of an IOU to the SS Trust. Problem is, when it comes time to payback those IOU's, the Government needs to either 1) Be running a surplus everywhere else in the budget to finance yearly SS deficits 2) borrow more or 3) raise taxes. Frankly, neither sounds appetizing.
2- There has been an unsettling increase of Disability payments thru SS that the government needs to fix before raising taxes. The following charts below tell the story.
SSDI-recession.png

SSDI-growth-drivers.png

SSDI-diagnoses.gif

We can thank Reagan for this. Early on, he put pressure on eliminating fraud in disability claims and it worked. Too well. Political backlash in Washington provided pressure and Reagan and Congress caved, signing into law SSDBRA in 1984. This law instructed the government to place greater weight on applicants’ own assessments of their disability, especially when it came to pain and discomfort; to replace the government’s medical assessments with those of the applicants’ own doctors; and to loosen the screening criteria for mental illness, among other things. I think we can agree the Mental Illness is probably a good thing (I am sure there is fraud there too unfortunately), but that is just a small portion of the increase as shown in the charts.
The other issue with disability is that the benefits of claiming disability have grown. The payout factors were supposed to replace most of your income prior to "injury", with some means testing. So, for the lower end earners would get most, if not all, of their income replaced. Here is the kicker........if you qualify for disability, you qualify for Medicare, regardless of age. Free insurance is a nice carrot. (Most of this disability information was from a special NPR investigation)
3 - For those making above the tax limit, I would assume most, if not all, would rather invest that money on their own. This promotes self reliance (which is a very good thing) and can generate additional tax revenue streams for the government (thru investment taxes, and economic activity from increased investment).
4 - Get people working again and pass freakin meaningful immigration reform that protects the SS trust and other government revenue streams. I am all for expanding the work force thru immigration, so long that there are protections of SS. It was just reported that the over 500K Dreamers were issues SS numbers and the IRS acknowledged these individuals can go back and claim refunds under the Earned Income Tax Credit for time they worked illegally — even if they didn’t file returns or pay taxes for those years. They can also now make claims for Disability. We need to ensure there are protections in place to prevent fraud from immigrants (even if it is a small %, the numbers add up)
5 - SS and disability needs to be robust enough for the people that need it. I am of the opinion that there is more than enough money raised and that thru proper means testing and disability reform, we could preserve the benefits for those who need it.

I applaud CC for what he is trying to do. He is brave enough to suggest something different even thou it may be politically difficult. We need more people like him who pursue the right thing, not the politically correct thing.

Perhaps it's brave for him to bring up reform but I'm not sure what's brave about his approach - taking from the so-called wealthy. Seems like politicians on both sides of the aisle are far too comfortable taxing and taking from those who they believe can absorb the hit. It disgusts me to think a man who produced his whole life, who paid into the system and continues to produce during his retirement years is punished simply b/c he has the will to produce. I agree there should be reform. It should start with all the fraud that takes place with SSDI. The leeches who consume and never contribute should be the concern of Christie and all these other clowns, not the producers.

I'll be curious to see if Christie takes his pension and SS when his time comes. I doubt he'll be as generous with his own money.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
not really against or for a specific approach to dealing with the current program

...I think the entire program needs re-baselined for starters. The scope needs to be clean and clear. Eligibility needs to be dealt with, and the scope pretty clean and clear. Changes to eligibility interpretation need to be formalized. Need some sort of rapid action change process from executive with limits so it can be responsive, but not long-term divorced from the budget/scope (ie irresponsible). Needs some higher standards for long term change...ie in order to change these programs fundamentally, or increase the scope long term...2/3 vote from congress, and a budget neutral analysis from CBO...ie take the money from somewhere else, or show out year savings according to max 5 year ROI. Things that make the administration of these programs according to real budget projections at least possible. Congress operates in a place where there are no controls, and that has proven untenable, so to me each program needs re-baselined, and controls to nail it down.

Government Owes $2.7 Trillion to Social Security : FedSmith.com
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Bloomberg View's Ramesh Ponnuru just published an article titled "There's No Shortage of Bad Ideas on Social Security":

Social Security Works, a left-wing group, was quick on the draw. Within an hour of Senator Marco Rubio’s announcement that he was running for president, it issued a news release attacking him: “If Senator Marco Rubio had his way, Social Security’s very modest benefits, averaging just $1,330 a month for retired workers, would be cut.”

That’s not true. A spokesman for the group says it had in mind Rubio’s proposal to increase the retirement age and his openness to reducing cost-of-living adjustments, which many economists believe overcompensate for inflation. But neither of those steps would cause average monthly benefits to be lower than they are today.

Social Security is an emotional topic, made more so by misinformation. My previous post for Bloomberg about it drew an immense number of comments and email, much of it angry at me for questioning Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to increase benefits without first finding a way to pay for the benefits we've already promised. The most common theme of the criticism -- excluding the unprintable emails -- is that we could easily pay for Social Security by raising taxes on the rich.

Taxes for Social Security are levied on wages up to $118,500. (Benefits are also capped.) Senator Bernie Sanders wants to change the Social Security tax to apply it to income above $250,000, and my correspondents were enthusiastic about this idea. They shouldn’t be.

Advocates present this tax increase as though it were a minor tweak to the system. It's much bigger than that. We've spent 20 years arguing about whether the top tax rate should be 35 percent or 39.6 percent. Getting rid of the Social Security cap would raise that top rate above 50 percent -- and that’s before counting state taxes.

Even that huge tax increase wouldn't balance the program’s finances over the long run, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would do even less to achieve balance if some of the money were spent on higher benefits, as Senate Democrats want; and less still if, as would be likely, the tax increases suppressed economic activity. And a possible source of revenue to rescue Medicare from insolvency would have been taken off the table.

Republicans, too, have some bad ideas about Social Security. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has just suggested gradually ending benefits for retirees with incomes of $80,000 to $200,000. He's right to favor lower benefits for affluent people, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

The kind of means-testing Christie is proposing would discourage people from saving for retirement, or working in retirement, when we should be encouraging both. But we can avoid this problem by basing means-testing on lifetime income, which Social Security already uses to calculate benefits. Future retirees who had high incomes over the course of their working lives should get lower benefits than similarly situated retirees today. At the very least, they should not get the much higher benefits that the system currently promises them. With that reform in place, the system could save money without imposing serious hardship or discouraging people from saving and working.

Ideally we would move toward a better system that guaranteed all senior citizens a decent floor of income -- something Social Security does not do -- while expanding people’s ability to use their own savings to finance retirement above that floor. (More on that here.) But we won’t get that system if we listen to reflexive attacks on benefit cuts, or if we indulge the fantasy that we can pay for everything Social Security has promised, and more, with sky-high taxes on the rich.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I acknowledged earlier this was a criminal act in my mind....but that we never hold anyone accountable for anything...so moving forward, we need to make it work. That money is never going to materialize. So we can point fingers, hope...or get to the business of fixing what we have.

Accountability is not really the issue at this point. This has been going on for decades, so who would we even hold accountable? The issue is returning the money to the trust fund. Whether it happens over 20 years or 50 through installments, the fact is that money did not belong to Congress. It belonged to the individuals who has spent a lifetime of work contributing to the fund so they would have a base to work from in their retirement. We could have replaced the money that was looted if we did not initiate a war with Iraq and used the money for something productive (instead of something astonishingly counter-productive) during the past decade. But, of course, there is no money in that for Halliburton so we didn't. We need our government to act with the same urgency it did in paying for that war to make the SS trust fund whole again. Instead, we are talking about shaving benefits, raising rates, and extending years as the solution. It is fundamentally unfair to everyone who has ever contributed to the trust fund.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,620
Reaction score
2,718
SSDI is a joke. Anyone with any more intelligence than moral character can collect, pretty low hurdle.

As for the SS, just increase the damn retirement ages already. Add one month for every year of age starting at age 60 going down to age 12. Over forty years you add four years so that full retirement becomes 71 instead of 67 (earliest becomes 66 instead of 62). The impact on the viability would be tremendous and nobody's retirement plan is horribly violated.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,620
Reaction score
2,718
Accountability is not really the issue at this point. This has been going on for decades, so who would we even hold accountable? The issue is returning the money to the trust fund. Whether it happens over 20 years or 50 through installments, the fact is that money did not belong to Congress. It belonged to the individuals who has spent a lifetime of work contributing to the fund so they would have a base to work from in their retirement. We could have replaced the money that was looted if we did not initiate a war with Iraq and used the money for something productive (instead of something astonishingly counter-productive) during the past decade. But, of course, there is no money in that for Halliburton so we didn't. We need our government to act with the same urgency it did in paying for that war to make the SS trust fund whole again. Instead, we are talking about shaving benefits, raising rates, and extending years as the solution. It is fundamentally unfair to everyone who has ever contributed to the trust fund.

How exactly did you want the magic trust fund invested? In effect SS funds are invested in Treasuries getting a nominal rate of return in this low rate environment. Part of my thesis on future inflation is the fact SS goes from reducing actual liquid government debt to grossly expanding it.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Accountability is not really the issue at this point. This has been going on for decades, so who would we even hold accountable? The issue is returning the money to the trust fund. Whether it happens over 20 years or 50 through installments, the fact is that money did not belong to Congress. It belonged to the individuals who has spent a lifetime of work contributing to the fund so they would have a base to work from in their retirement. We could have replaced the money that was looted if we did not initiate a war with Iraq and used the money for something productive (instead of something astonishingly counter-productive) during the past decade. But, of course, there is no money in that for Halliburton so we didn't. We need our government to act with the same urgency it did in paying for that war to make the SS trust fund whole again. Instead, we are talking about shaving benefits, raising rates, and extending years as the solution. It is fundamentally unfair to everyone who has ever contributed to the trust fund.

1) Agree
2) Good Luck with that

I don't think what you propose is going to happen, and we have a very real issue to deal with...
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
SSDI is a joke. Anyone with any more intelligence than moral character can collect, pretty low hurdle.

As for the SS, just increase the damn retirement ages already. Add one month for every year of age starting at age 60 going down to age 12. Over forty years you add four years so that full retirement becomes 71 instead of 67 (earliest becomes 66 instead of 62). The impact on the viability would be tremendous and nobody's retirement plan is horribly violated.

What about those people who have physically demanding jobs -- the waitress who has to be on her feet carrying trays of food to customers or a roofer who has to work in the elements performing physically demanding work and risking a fall? You just want to tack on an extra four years and tell them to suck it up? I'm amazed that folks like that are working past 60 as it is ... this is a huge burden for people who are getting up in years.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_Ojd13kZlCA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>





























































































I know its not just Obama but politicians for a number of years from both sides of the aisle...but i wanted to get a rise out of Go for a sec...:smilewink

you got an eye roll, but that's about it. :)
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
How exactly did you want the magic trust fund invested? In effect SS funds are invested in Treasuries getting a nominal rate of return in this low rate environment. Part of my thesis on future inflation is the fact SS goes from reducing actual liquid government debt to grossly expanding it.



Nothing magic about it. If I took money out of my kids' college fund every time I wanted to buy something extra, eventually there would come a time that my kids wouldn't be set up to go to college. That's the kind of thing we are looking at right now with SS.

I don't care if the funds sit in a broom closet until they are sent out to the people who own them as promised. This program would be perfectly solvent if politicians would have kept their hands off of money that didn't belong to them. It should not be up to the victims to pay for the mistakes of imcompetent lawmakers who lacked fiscal discipline.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Nothing magic about it. If I took money out of my kids' college fund every time I wanted to buy something extra, eventually there would come a time that my kids wouldn't be set up to go to college. That's the kind of thing we are looking at right now with SS.

I don't care if the funds sit in a broom closet until they are sent out to the people who own them as promised. This program would be perfectly solvent if politicians would have kept their hands off of money that didn't belong to them. It should not be up to the victims to pay for the mistakes of incompetent lawmakers who lacked fiscal discipline.

...yea. 1) we get the leadership we deserve. 2) Who are you going to start with...and end with if your issue has to do with politicians doing stupid (and criminal) shit that cost us all?

I don't think paying it back is real...at least until we have an overall budgetary surplus...and I think the kind of fiscal restraint required to make that real is NEVER, EVER going to be allowed to happen...even if it looks like we'll have a surplus, I mean shit, in the face of horrendous financial crisis, we ADDED entitlement programs...not just added to existing...we added MORE. No hope there dude.

What we have is a situation where current revenue and budget MUST be made to work...IMHO. And people under 50 will be lucky to get anything, much less the benefit promised. Trust me, I have two sets of aging parents (mine and my wife's) who are being smacked all over the place...losing all medical and dental benefits and some payouts from pension plans, and medicare docs vanishing into thin air...don't tell me about fair. That isn't even phased in...thats just a letter with a kind, apologetic opening and a fuck you very much closing, with one month's notice. Truth is, if the money isn't there, regardless of why, people act to stretch it...and guess what...thats what we are going to have to do...IMHO.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Perhaps it's brave for him to bring up reform but I'm not sure what's brave about his approach - taking from the so-called wealthy. Seems like politicians on both sides of the aisle are far too comfortable taxing and taking from those who they believe can absorb the hit. It disgusts me to think a man who produced his whole life, who paid into the system and continues to produce during his retirement years is punished simply b/c he has the will to produce. I agree there should be reform. It should start with all the fraud that takes place with SSDI. The leeches who consume and never contribute should be the concern of Christie and all these other clowns, not the producers.

I'll be curious to see if Christie takes his pension and SS when his time comes. I doubt he'll be as generous with his own money.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think it misses the bigger picture.

The person who has produced and contributed is now drawing on a benefit that exists only on paper. The Feds need to borrow or raise taxes on others to make sure they can pay said person. Considering the borrowing levels today, additional borrowing and/or interest rate increases create a fiscal picture that will force tough decisions.

This particular issue, IMO, extends well beyond what the productive people are owed. It's more about where do we get the most utility for our spending levels, and I just can't imagine that giving SS to people who have the means to thrive without it provides large amounts of utility. Don't get me wrong, we need to fight the fraud and other issues that compound the problem today first. But if that doesn't get us where we need to be, plans like this need to be enacted.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
...yea. 1) we get the leadership we deserve. 2) Who are you going to start with...and end with if your issue has to do with politicians doing stupid (and criminal) shit that cost us all?

I don't think paying it back is real...at least until we have an overall budgetary surplus...and I think the kind of fiscal restraint required to make that real is NEVER, EVER going to be allowed to happen...even if it looks like we'll have a surplus, I mean shit, in the face of horrendous financial crisis, we ADDED entitlement programs...not just added to existing...we added MORE. No hope there dude.

What we have is a situation where current revenue and budget MUST be made to work...IMHO. And people under 50 will be lucky to get anything, much less the benefit promised. Trust me, I have two sets of aging parents (mine and my wife's) who are being smacked all over the place...losing all medical and dental benefits and some payouts from pension plans, and medicare docs vanishing into thin air...don't tell me about fair. That isn't even phased in...thats just a letter with a kind, apologetic opening and a fuck you very much closing, with one month's notice. Truth is, if the money isn't there, regardless of why, people act to stretch it...and guess what...thats what we are going to have to do...IMHO.

It may not be politically feasible TODAY, but when we are 5 or 10 years from going bust, you can bet that there will be a higher degree of urgency to fix this self-inflicted problem. And the answer presented to the angry mob will not be -- OK, just work until you are 75 and we buy ourselves 20 more years. The closer we get to the rubber meeting the road, the more urgency will be applied to this problem. And, the only answer that fully addresses the problem is put the $2.2 trillion back where it came from. I recognize that you don't feel that is realistic. I disagree. And infustion of $2.2 trillion would probably keep the program on solid ground through my lifetime, yours and all of IE members, too. ... so long as the money keeps coming in from contributions.

Some say, let's get rid of the SS system. That is simply not going to happen. Nearly every person in this country grew up with the idea of Social Security as a natural thing that happens when they become older. It is easy for the young to say screw it, I'll just save myself but those who are older and have paid in longer will never stand for it. And if it did happen, we would go right back to having the same problems that spawned this program in the first place ... destitute elderly people who are a significant burden on their families, their communities, and society. On big economic downturn and these problems would become apparent. And it would be worse today than it was when FDR began the program because health care costs, housing costs, food costs, and everything else have continued to climb, and real wages have continued to decline. Imagine all of that colliding and the elderly taking the brunt of the impact. Do you really think the people in this country are going to stand by and let that happen to mom, or grandpa? I don't.

So there are a few options: 1. We can either reimburse everyone all the money they put into it so far. (Lets face it, people who paid for 40 or 50 years are going to absolutely demand their money back, at a minimum. And what do we replace it with?) 2. Cut back on benefits and extend retirement ages (which will be a terrible burden for blue collar workers and BandAids like that will have their social limits, too, when people say, "enough.") or 3. come up with a plan to replace the money that was looted from the trust fund. The right politician with the right timing could make that a certerpiece issue -- maybe not today, but as D-Day moves closer. You speak as if this is the most difficult of the solutions -- I think it is the easiest.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
It may not be politically feasible TODAY, but when we are 5 or 10 years from going bust, you can bet that there will be a higher degree of urgency to fix this self-inflicted problem. And the answer presented to the angry mob will not be -- OK, just work until you are 75 and we buy ourselves 20 more years. The closer we get to the rubber meeting the road, the more urgency will be applied to this problem. And, the only answer that fully addresses the problem is put the $2.2 trillion back where it came from. I recognize that you don't feel that is realistic. I disagree. And infustion of $2.2 trillion would probably keep the program on solid ground through my lifetime, yours and all of IE members, too. ... so long as the money keeps coming in from contributions.

Some say, let's get rid of the SS system. That is simply not going to happen. Nearly every person in this country grew up with the idea of Social Security as a natural thing that happens when they become older. It is easy for the young to say screw it, I'll just save myself but those who are older and have paid in longer will never stand for it. And if it did happen, we would go right back to having the same problems that spawned this program in the first place ... destitute elderly people who are a significant burden on their families, their communities, and society. On big economic downturn and these problems would become apparent. And it would be worse today than it was when FDR began the program because health care costs, housing costs, food costs, and everything else have continued to climb, and real wages have continued to decline. Imagine all of that colliding and the elderly taking the brunt of the impact. Do you really think the people in this country are going to stand by and let that happen to mom, or grandpa? I don't.

So there are a few options: 1. We can either reimburse everyone all the money they put into it so far. (Lets face it, people who paid for 40 or 50 years are going to absolutely demand their money back, at a minimum. And what do we replace it with?) 2. Cut back on benefits and extend retirement ages (which will be a terrible burden for blue collar workers and BandAids like that will have their social limits, too, when people say, "enough.") or 3. come up with a plan to replace the money that was looted from the trust fund. The right politician with the right timing could make that a certerpiece issue -- maybe not today, but as D-Day moves closer. You speak as if this is the most difficult of the solutions -- I think it is the easiest.

So where does that $2T come from?

I understand exactly what you are saying, but there is no way to do this without causing issues.

1 - Borrow $2T more? The current debt is at $18T. That would be a LARGE increase and we would be paying interest on it.
2 - Print it. For comparison, QE2 (which includes reinvested proceeds from QE1) was at about $900B.
3 - Tax your way out. But, any faith that surpluses would be treated differently than before?

There is no good answer.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,620
Reaction score
2,718
Do you realize there is no limit to the amount of money they can print? There is no lock box, Al Gore. We cannot go bankrupt! There is an unlimited supply of money! What that creates is called inflation. Your dollars become worth less because they are backed by voodoo bull sh!t.

On the other hand, what happens if the Federal Reserve just signs over its multi trillion dollars of assets over to Uncle Sam? The government already owes itself one fourth of its debt in the SS "trust fund" and the Fed has another 1/4th in its broom closet or wherever GoIrish envisions they have all this money stacked up. When those two sources stop soaking up the debt issuance where do interest rates go to bring trillions of dollars of investment into US Govt bonds?
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
As for the SS, just increase the damn retirement ages already. Add one month for every year of age starting at age 60 going down to age 12. Over forty years you add four years so that full retirement becomes 71 instead of 67 (earliest becomes 66 instead of 62). The impact on the viability would be tremendous and nobody's retirement plan is horribly violated.

So: (1) the Baby Boomers will continue to enjoy full benefits; (2) but Millennials will have to suck up a steep cut to our SS benefits (which is what raising the retirement age amounts to); (3) because the corrupt f*cking politicians the Baby Boomers elected raided the trust fund.

This is intergenerational theft, and telling the young to just "suck it up" isn't justice. The short-sighted, materialistic, selfish as$holes who created this problem should be the ones to pay it. It's terribly ironic that Brokaw's Greatest Generation was immediately followed by the Worst Generation.
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
It may not be politically feasible TODAY, but when we are 5 or 10 years from going bust, you can bet that there will be a higher degree of urgency to fix this self-inflicted problem. And the answer presented to the angry mob will not be -- OK, just work until you are 75 and we buy ourselves 20 more years. The closer we get to the rubber meeting the road, the more urgency will be applied to this problem. And, the only answer that fully addresses the problem is put the $2.2 trillion back where it came from. I recognize that you don't feel that is realistic. I disagree. And infustion of $2.2 trillion would probably keep the program on solid ground through my lifetime, yours and all of IE members, too. ... so long as the money keeps coming in from contributions.

Some say, let's get rid of the SS system. That is simply not going to happen. Nearly every person in this country grew up with the idea of Social Security as a natural thing that happens when they become older. It is easy for the young to say screw it, I'll just save myself but those who are older and have paid in longer will never stand for it. And if it did happen, we would go right back to having the same problems that spawned this program in the first place ... destitute elderly people who are a significant burden on their families, their communities, and society. On big economic downturn and these problems would become apparent. And it would be worse today than it was when FDR began the program because health care costs, housing costs, food costs, and everything else have continued to climb, and real wages have continued to decline. Imagine all of that colliding and the elderly taking the brunt of the impact. Do you really think the people in this country are going to stand by and let that happen to mom, or grandpa? I don't.

So there are a few options: 1. We can either reimburse everyone all the money they put into it so far. (Lets face it, people who paid for 40 or 50 years are going to absolutely demand their money back, at a minimum. And what do we replace it with?) 2. Cut back on benefits and extend retirement ages (which will be a terrible burden for blue collar workers and BandAids like that will have their social limits, too, when people say, "enough.") or 3. come up with a plan to replace the money that was looted from the trust fund. The right politician with the right timing could make that a certerpiece issue -- maybe not today, but as D-Day moves closer. You speak as if this is the most difficult of the solutions -- I think it is the easiest.

...so wait until the next Mesiah. No thanks. I'd rather deal with the problem now, with a known set of circumstances. I don't discount making room for a payback, but counting on it is asking for calamity. I personally believe there is a snowball's chance in hell this money is getting paid back...Angry people mean nothing to the government...if that were so, Washington might be functional. Support will not be as universal as you think because there will always be competing interests like a shiny NEW entitlement...SMH.
 
Top