General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProposing cuts to Social Security is stupid at every level.
It is bad policy -- SS is not bankrupt, and people on SS deserve the benefits.
It is bad politics -- it is hugely unpopular.
It is bad negotiating -- giving the GOP what the want in advance has never worked. Ever.
WTF?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)President Obama just destroyed the Democratic Party. It's what some have wanted all along. Good work, Mr. President. You proved your detractors right.
Still, doesn't this mean the critics can now step in and prevent a President Jeb Bush by delivering a President to the left of Obama?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Even a President to the RIGHT of Obama backed away from "reforming" SS"
...no. Bush was stopped cold by Democrats in Congress. It's possible that Democrats in Congress could stop Obama.
Still, maybe a President Jeb is what Democrats need to fight back, that's one theory.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)privatizing SS. He was met with increasingly frosty receptions, and think about how stage-managed his audiences were.
It's still the third rail, as far as the public is concerned.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"But RONALD REAGAN signed to a bill to protect SS. So Obama is to the right of HIM."
...familiar with the Reagan hype, but his legacy is based solely on taxing Social Security benefits.
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.
This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.
(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
TAX TREATMENT
Taxation of Social Security and Railroad Retirement Tier 1 Benefits
Beginning in 1984, includes in taxable income up to one-half of Social Security (and railroad retirement tier 1) benefits received by taxpayers whose incomes exceed certain base amounts. The base amounts are $25,000 for a single taxpayer, $32,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and zero for married taxpayers filing separately. Income for purposes of figuring these base amounts includes adjusted gross income under prior law, plus nontaxable interest income, and one-half of Social Security and railroad retirement tier 1 benefits. The amount of benefits that could be included in taxable income will be the lesser of one-half of benefits or one-half of the excess of the taxpayers' combined income (AGI + one-half of benefits) over the base amount. The provision for including nontaxable interest income is intended to provide similar tax treatment of benefits received by individuals whose total incomes consist of different mixes of taxable and nontaxable income and to limit opportunities for manipulation of tax liability on benefits.
Includes in the definition of Social Security benefits for tax purposes workmen's compensation benefits to the extent they cause a reduction in Social Security and railroad retirement tier 1 disability benefits. This provision is intended to assure that these social insurance benefits, which are paid in lieu of Social Security payments, are treated similarly for purposes of taxation.
The provision applies to nonresident aliens as well as U.S. citizens. Under the Internal Revenue Code, nonresident aliens who have income from sources other than a U.S. trade or business are taxed at a flat rate of 30 percent, unless a tax treaty provides otherwise, and the taxes must be withheld at the source of payment. Thus, 30 percent of 1/2 of the Social Security benefit (15 percent of the total benefit) will be withheld from nonresident alien beneficiaries.
Provides special rules for dealing with overpayments and lump-sum retroactive benefit payments. Benefits paid to an individual in any taxable year will be reduced by any overpayments repaid during the year. Taxpayers who receive a lump-sum payment of retroactive benefits may treat the benefits as wholly payable for the year in which they receive them or may elect to attribute the benefits to the tax years in which they would have fallen had they been paid timely. No benefits for months before December 1983 would be taxable, regardless of when they are paid.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Railroad Retirement Board to file annual returns with the Secretary of the Treasury setting forth the amounts of benefits paid to each individual in each calendar year, together with the name and address of the individual. Also requires furnishing of similar information to each beneficiary.
Requires that amounts equivalent to estimated quarterly proceeds from the taxation of benefits be automatically deposited in the Social Security trust funds and the railroad retirement account, as appropriate, at the beginning of each calendar quarter, subject to final adjustments based on estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury. Requires an annual report by the Secretary of the Treasury concerning the transfers under this provision.
The provision is estimated to affect about 10 percent of Social Security beneficiaries in 1984. Amounts equal to the estimated tax revenues under this provision will be automatically deposited to the OASDI trust funds. The provision increases trust fund revenues by $26.7 billion for 1983-1989 and by .62 percent of taxable payroll in the long range.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Tax_revenue
It's time to stop hyping Reagan.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
"Ronald Reagan: Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit."
...he said it, and then he implemented a tax on Social Security benefits: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618697
Not really hard to make that statement.
Dean Baker: FactCheck Gets It Wrong on Social Security and the Deficit
<...>
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/factcheck-gets-it-wrong-on-social-security-and-the-deficit
JoeBlowToo
(253 posts)And they are still trying to make that dream come true. The other purpose in attacking SS is to help Wall Street take over and syphon off the rest in fees.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Obama is doing his best to keep the bush playbook going. Are you giddy?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)would have been to sell out on SS. So who sold out on SS that you believe wanted the Democratic Party destroyed?
"Who wanted the Democratic destroyed? Other than Republicans. And one way to do that would have been to sell out on SS. So who sold out on SS that you believe wanted the Democratic Party destroyed?"
...are you going to deny that there are people who believe the entire Democratic Party has sold out and are advocating a third party?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)might want to see the entire Democratic Party destroyed. Not one Democrat I know ever wanted that. They worked and donated and some even took time off work, to help democrats win the last number of elections.
So with Democrats out of the way, who exactly are you referring to who might want to see the entire Democratic Party wiped out?
And what would Democrats have to do to help happen? People WISHING for the end of the Democratic Party would start out by getting DEMOCRATS to the be the ones to attack one of the most popular, life-saving and successful Democratic programs ever. And who exactly are you referring to then? Because I do not know a single Democrat, and to be honest, not even many Republicans who want to see that program touched.
"You didn't answer my question. I already mentioned the only people I know who might want to see the entire Democratic Party destroyed. Not one Democrat I know ever wanted that. They worked and donated and some even took time off work, to help democrats win the last number of elections."
...said anything about Democrats wanting to destroy the Democratic Party? I said, there are people who do, people who you seem to want to deny exists.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You are making vague statements and refusing to clarify.
So I'll say it again. Republicans want to destroy the Dem Party and they haven't been shy about it. I remember Tom Delay et al and their public statements about keep Republicans in office forever.
But they couldn't do it, why? Because the public likes Democratic Policies, they benefit from them, programs like SS. Republicans want to privatize SS, Democrats do not.
Republicans failed to destroy the Democratic Party. It simply isn't possible.
But there is one way to do it, as I said already. And it looks like someone is willing to do it, someone who IS a Democrat.
I've never met a Democrat who would even consider touching SS, certainly never met one who would offer SS up as a bargaining chip, to of all people, REPUBLICANS, Never!
So here's what I am saying clearly, no hinting, since you brought it up. The ONLY people who could destroy the Democratic Party would be Democrats willing to sell SS down the river to Republicans.
Is that plain enough for you? Only DEMOCRATS could succeed in destroying the Democratic Party by selling out on the most important and popular Democratic programs.
Republicans cannot destroy the Democratic Party. Only democrats have the power to do that. Surely you already knew that?
So, what would it take in your opinion, to destroy the Dem Party and who has the power to do it? Who are you talking about, iow?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2013, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)
2nd Just curious ...why do you seemingly think Obama never does or says anything wrong? Is anyone perfect?
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)And it's not anyone who actually NEEDS SS in any way, shape or form. Which narrows the group down to a very select bunch.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)Chicago style.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)
bullwinkle428
(20,628 posts)to his brother which in part addresses this subject:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x350935
forestpath
(3,102 posts)have much use for Democrats.
Response to forestpath (Reply #16)
datasuspect This message was self-deleted by its author.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican." - President Barack Obama
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Budget. Banking. Jobs. Healthcare. Foreign Affairs. Education. Civil Rights.
Yep. Every level.
spedtr90
(719 posts)"Look. I understand you strongly dislike those people you're holding, and you want to kill them. Just so you know I understand you and you can trust me, go ahead and kill a few. I'll call back later to see what you want next."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)And this administration is very KEEN to get a deal.
It's objectionable to persons who have greater affinity to traditional principles of the Democratic Party than they do to the 'practical considerations' of government.
Obama may not like it, but he doesn't dislike it so much that it would keep him from compromising the social nets that secure our futures.
IMO Obama believes in the gloom and doom scenarios common among those born after 1961 about the burdens the baby-boom retirement represent.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...of that I am firmly convinced.
I think it gets there from the millions of $$$$$ that float around there. People's judgment gets clouded by the swarm of "lobbyists" (read: corporate bribesters) who advise on and even write so much of our legislation.
It stinks.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)this is a reasonable analysis:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/04/obamas_dangerous_game.php?ref=fpblg
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)belongs to the American workers and is not a bargaining chip to be played with. I made the terrible mistake of thinking that all Democrats knew this. They certainly acted as if they did when Bush tried to use it as a bargaining chip.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)I'm guessing, not many.
earthside
(6,960 posts)How many Democratic incumbents in the U.S. Senate running for reelection next year are going to want to have cuts to Social Security as part of their agenda???
For that matter, how many Repuglican incumbents in the U.S. Senate running for reelection next year are going to want to have cuts to Social Security as part of their agenda???
So, why would Pres. Obama offer this again? It is a loser from start to finish.
Because no Democrat or Repuglican is going to trade cuts in Social Security for raising taxes!
How do you campaign on that?
"I voted to cut your Social Security and I voted to raise your taxes, too!"
Yeah, sure ... that's a winner.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)game they are playing with SS. Maybe this will be the straw that makes it possible for some real Progressive Democrats to win back Congress.
Running on restoring SS benefits would be a winner imo. I don't even know any Republicans who want to see this happen.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)positive proposal.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Nancy Pelosi has drunk the kool-aid. It looks like one bold “progressive” has hit the dirt, caved, collapsed, gone the way of all DC flesh. Nancy Pelosi now favors benefits cuts to Social Security as part of the President’s personal Grand Bargain. Talking Points Memo, citing a Pelosi press conference on Dec 19 (Wednesday; my emphasis and paragraphing):
Though Chained CPI would reduce lifetime benefits relative to the current cost of living adjustment formula, Pelosi said she does not consider it a benefit cut. “No, I don’t,” consider it a benefit cut, she said. “I consider it a strengthening of Social Security.”
Cleita
(75,480 posts)will diminish purchasing power and lead to real hardship for many seniors, the majority of whom would be women. As the father of two girls, BHO should be thinking about their futures. They may not grow old and rich. All kinds of things can happen to people who are wealthy and they could lose their wealth before they grow old.
Nancy's brown nosing sometimes really irritates me.
George II
(67,782 posts)...can someone specifically state what are the cuts that Obama is proposing? Please?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)benefits are calculated, to a new formula called "Chained CPI". The result of this is going to be that benefits will rise more slowly, because Chained CPI gives a lower estimate of inflation than the current method.
At the end of the day, the result is that people receiving Social Security will get less money.
George II
(67,782 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Does it make sense in policy terms? No. First of all, there is no reason to believe that the chained index is a better measure of inflation facing seniors than the standard CPI. It’s true that the standard measure arguably understates inflation for the typical household — but seniors have a different consumption basket from the young, one that includes more medical expenses, and probably face true inflation that’s higher, not lower, than the official measure.
Anyway, it’s not as if the current level of real benefits has any sacred significance. The truth — although you’ll never hear this in Serious circles — is that we really should be increasing SS benefits. Why? Because the shift from defined-benefit pensions to defined contribution, the rise of the 401(k), has been a bust, and many older Americans will soon find themselves in dire straits. SS is the last defined-benefit pension still standing — thank you, Nancy Pelosi, for standing up to Bush — and should be strengthened, not weakened.
...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/desperately-seeking-serious-approval/
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Jade Fox
(10,030 posts)than he cares about pleasing us, the people who voted for him. Not to mention doing the right thing.
George II
(67,782 posts)
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Boner already rejected it, cementing his bonehead position as head obstructor.
