There are two kinds of people who want to cut Social Security--

[eridani]

—liars, and people who believe the lies. They’ve heard the conservative talking points. “Social Security is going broke.” “Social Security won’t be there for me when I retire.” “The only way to save Social Security is to cut benefits.”

nfortunately, these Wall Street funded lies have gotten plenty of traction in recent years. So much so that a recent survey shows that 43 percent of young people believe that Social Security won’t be there for them when they retire—no matter how much that same survey shows that these same young people want it to.

It’s time to set the record straight. This 4th of July weekend, when you’re speaking with your Chris Christie-loving cousin at the family BBQ, you have the facts on your side:

Social Security has a $2.8 trillion surplus and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible person for nearly two decades. After that, even if we do nothing, it will pay out approximately 80% of benefits owed for the next 75 years.
--Social Security has not contributed one penny to the deficit because it is independently funded by the FICA payroll tax.
--Proposed “tweaks” to Social Security would hurt seniors, disabled veterans and people with disabilities.
--All we need is to ask millionaires and billionaires to start paying into Social Security at the same rate as the rest of us and we not only extend the life of the Social Security trust fund, but we can expand benefits to the majority of Americans

.


With the facts on our side, we have begun to see a dramatic shift in the national conversation around Social Security. It wasn’t that long ago that we were still fighting a “chained CPI” benefit cut being proposed by President Obama, all Republicans and some Democrats in Congress. Today, 44 out of 46 Senate Democrats and 116 out of 188 House Democrats have gone on record supporting expansion. And 79% of likely voters – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – support expansion!

[SusanCalvin]

1. You will not get SS

has been around, to my personal recollection, since the early 80s. Some groups are spreading this stuff any way they can.

[Initech]

5. I'm 35, I am very worried retirement won't be an option when I'm 65.

These fuckers keep spreading the lies and I'm sure there's a lot of people my age that have latched onto the idea. It's scary what happens when the lie keeps getting repeated.

[Betty Karlson]

8. Same here. The meme is so incessantly repeated,

that even those who don't believe the argument may still count with the selfishness of the small but powerful group that makes the argument.

[Live and Learn]

9. Well, that may well be true.

Social Security dollars have been losing value and you may well have to wait till 70 to collect.

However, I think something will happen when people realize that the stock market is not a wise way to save for retirement and that most people CAN'T save enough on their own for it.

Maybe 2016 will be the year if Bernie's message is actually heard.

[Ms. Yertle]

38. Curious--

as to why you don't think the stock market is a good wa to save for retirement.

Sure, every few years there is a correction--sometimes a major correction--but over time it can bring a seriously good return. When the market crashed in 2009, a friend of mine who is a broker begged her clientele to hang tough. Many of them did not, and lost a crapload of $$$. Those who didn't made it up long ago, and have increased their holding.

Private pensions are dependent on the stock market, too. If stock market investment is a bad way to fund retirement, then so are private pensions.

[SheilaT]

39. The reason the stock market isn't very good for most people

is that they do exactly what your broker friend described: They get out when things turn sour, and many of them had probably only gotten in when it was at its height. I have an investment adviser I've had for years. I trust him, and I'd already been through more than one market downturn by 2009, so I wasn't very worried. And my investments have gone up quite nicely in recent years.

Far too many people who are in the market are concerned with timing, which is a big mistake. It's the steady investing, preferably in a wide variety of investments, that is best. Most people should probably be in index funds, but aren't

[Ms. Yertle]

41. I hear you,

but that doesn't mean it's a bad way to save, for any long-term goals. What is needed is financial education, starting very young, and eventually including wise investing strategies.

[Curmudgeoness]

45. I think that the problems with the stock market for retirement

are as noted above---that most people panic and end up losing a good amount of their investments. But we are also talking about the stock market being the only savings for retirement if SS were to be privatized, so you could be in dire straits if the market has a major correction when you want (or need) to retire. Even people who do not panic and sell at the wrong time can be required to work much longer than they had expected because their investments have taken a nose dive.

Also, when you think of the number of people who are not making much money, I don't know how anyone would expect them to save enough to allow for retirement on their own. Too many of the poorest working people are barely able to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. Even if you continue to deduct the FICA from their paycheck and invest that in the market for them, the savings they would accrue would not be enough.

Regarding private pensions, if you have noticed, many companies have had to renege on the promises made regarding pensions. Some have cut the amount of pensions to people in mid-stream, some have actually walked away from the pension altogether, leaving pensioners with no income when they had expected and deserved it. Many of them blame the downturn in the stock market for these moves. Those funds also lost a significant portion of their holdings. (No, I don't buy that this is the only reason that they were underfunded.)

[Stargazer99]

47. Someone has to lose when someone wins in the stock market

keep the general public uneducated....it works for the monied

[Stargazer99]

48. In the stock market someone has to lose while the other wins

and it is usually the lower-income that loses. Which reminds me privatizing schools helps keep the lower-income in their place (don't teach them too much they might revolt)

[doc03]

56. Well my pension is invested in the stock market and

every year since I retired (5 years ago) it's percentage of funding has dropped and is currently at 82.94%. But if the congress wouldn't have changed the way they calculate funding of private pensions in 2012 it would be at 67.33% and the PBGC would have taken it over already. Even with the new calculations it will be insolvent in a couple more years. So much for your putting the SS in the stock market bullshit.

[Initech]

76. The way the billionaires and banks are taking every cent we have...

I'm not sure even pensions will be a viable option when I'm 65.

[trinidad]

14. I am almost 35, worried, but worried about the damn lies.

I get so tired of people calling social security a pyramid scheme. A pyramid scheme is when money is transferred from one person to the next without a good or service being exchanged.
That is one of the many lies they keep repeating. My worry is that repeating the lie often enough means people will act on it like reality.

[B Calm]

35. I'm 65, and they were saying the same shit about social security when I was 35!

[captnearl]

55. Social Security going broke (not)

you and every one you know needs to vote progressive in every election..then we weed out those who don't want it tweaked to extend it for another 75 years that plus your age puts you in fine spot...my 50 yr old daughter believes as you do..she is very wrong.

[Thor_MN]

90. You do realize that full retirement age is 67 for those of us born after 1960?

It's possible to retire at 65 (with reduced benefits), but the "retirement age" is now 67, thanks to Reagan.

[SheilaT]

6. Longer than that.

I'm now 66 years old, and forty years ago I'd hear my contemporaries saying Social Security won't be around when I retire.

It infuriated me then, and it infuriates me still. If enough younger people are persuaded that it won't be there for them, then they won't care enough to try to save it. Worse yet, for a very large majority of people, SS is a significant source of income in retirement.

[raccoon]

30. Ditto here. I'm about as old as you, and I remember in 1975 my boss said that. She was born in 1945

So she IS getting SS now....

[Enthusiast]

59. Huge +1!

[StarzGuy]

78. Let's not forget those of us who are on SSDi

I worked ever since I was 16 at some sort of job until I finished college. Then taught in the public school system for 35 years until I became disabled and unable to work. Not being 66 (my natural retirement age at the time) I had to retire on Social Security Disability Insurance along with a small pension. I had lost my job and couldn't find another one and pulled out my retirement savings to survive on for a year until I found another job way away from my home on the Navajo Reservation. You see, in public education, number of years of experience works against you if after so many years you need to find another teaching position. School districts in my state are strapped for cash (tea party budget cuts) that they would rather hire two new teachers than one with substantial experience.

When I finally got a position on the Navajo reservation I had already lost my home and simply moved up to teacher housing next to the school. It was very remote and there were no non-Navajo towns nearby so the district supplied housing for non-Indian staff. It's like renting a house and the rent was automatically deducted from my pay. I also had to pay utilities out of pocket. I became disabled only after 7 years and was forced to retire. So in addition to my SSDI I have a small federal pension which given my rather short stint being a federal employee isn't all that much. I rely mostly on my SSDI to survive in a small 2 bedroom apartment now. If Congress goes ahead and cuts 20% of my SSDI I will be on the streets as I will no longer be able to afford the apartment. I already have trouble putting food on my table (I am single no relatives). I suppose I could cut out the luxury items like Direct TV, a cell phone and internet access. But then, I'd still have my utilities to pay. I'm still 6 years away from 66, so I worry every single day about my benefits being cut.

[appalachiablue]

95. For your sake and many others I hope Congress doesn't make cuts. I admire your strength

in managing all this and coping with uncertainties. Thanks for sharing, and hopefully matters will be ok. Stay in touch and you know that people on DU try help out if there's a need. I am on my own pretty much and have concerns although not to the degree you have. Peace and all the best.

[appalachiablue]

91. +5 Just lift the cap! and stop with the Chained CPI & Catfood Commission scares of Obama.

[TexasProgresive]

11. How about since 1970 at least n/t

[merrily]

13. Because your granny cheated you out of it.

[jtuck004]

18. Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist

...
Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.

The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.

Let’s have a look at the events leading up to this proposal. Reagan and the government had big financial problems. Supply-side economics was not working like Reagan had promised. Instead of the lower tax rates generating more revenue as the supply-siders claimed would happen, there was a dramatic drop in revenue. Something had to be done, so Ronald Reagan set for himself a new mission. He would have to figure out a way to get the additional revenue he needed from another source.
...

- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/#sthash.eKvNMqTm.dpuf

This was the agenda back then. Today is an outgrowth of that, I think.

[appalachiablue]

92. Reagan's changes to SS I've heard of but not that $ wasn't put in the trust fund. Concerning.

[jtuck004]

94. It's really not. We are a fiat currency, haven't been based on a physical standard since

we got rid of gold when it became a liability.

Now we simply set the values in a computer, adding zeroes as it were. There is no commensurate inflow and outgo, since it doesn't work like one's kitchen jar bank. Or any other private or public bank. It is the government and thus has the power to manufacture its own currency. No other entity has that power. Everyone, and I mean everyone, else has to make it, borrow it, steal it, something.

It is a modern, flexible instrument for doing international business. You may have heard of the "trillion dollar coin" that could be "minted" - that is why they can do such things with just an order, instead of a lot of complicated financial wrangling. It influences the perception of our dollar in a lot of ways,

The really sad part is that most schools seem to still be teaching economics based on the 1700's, so a large part of our population has never had training in the actual mechanics of modern money, but in those antiquated and somewhat useless accounting.

Look up Randy Wray at the university in Kansas City, I think it is. Or http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/
There are lots of places to learn if you are "out" of school.

The upshot of that is we spend money where we want to, based on decisions we as a country make. We can spend it on guns AND paying retirement, but it makes our currency look weaker. This affects, negatively, the wealth of the relatively few.

So the talk becomes we have to NOT spend it on social security, even though it was the recipients money in the first place. In other words, the wealthy and their lapdogs want to use this specious argument to $teal our money, because they don't want to take the hit.

Don't be fooled. We can do every penny with a tax increase on the wealthy or not. That would make the accounting look a little better, and in theory would help with inequality (need to educate the people or the wealthy will just take it back, but that's another post), but we really do have the ability to pay any bill we want to.

Anyone that tells you we can't means they don't want to because they don't care about what or who is owed, because of whatever motivation they have. Not that we can't.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. They have been saying it won't be there to pay out literally since before they passed the law

Republicans were saying that as Social Security was being established and they have said it every year since. So it started in 1935.

[awoke_in_2003]

44. Wall Street wants that money

They will get it eventually, and third way dems will put a big old bow on it.

[Enthusiast]

61. That's why we cannot elect Democrats with as much as a whiff of Third Way about them.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[appalachiablue]

93. Correct they can sniff out $ anywhere & are determined to get at it. Predators-Vampires.

[Demobrat]

84. I'm obviously older than you.

I think I heard it the first time in the early seventies.

[Fuddnik]

87. I started hearing it around 1971.

[napi21]

2. The Pubs have been sayig this kind of crap for YEARS! My BIL said back in 1959 that

SS wouldn't be around when HE retires. He was 20 years old then. He's now 76, and yes, he's collecting SS. (Yes, he's always been a PUBBIE!)

He and those like him simply ignore those of us who say "You remember, way back, when you said SS would not be there for you?" He still insists t's going broke, and it won't be long now.

[merrily]

15. Meanwhile, he's happy to collect every cent he can.

[napi21]

97. OH YEA! He would never say no to a $!

My point was, even when history proved him wrong, he still won't cede the point.

He's a strong Pub. The only thing he & I ever agreed on politically is a support of unions. He was union guy his whole career and really disagrees with the Pubs wanting to destroy them.

[SoapBox]

3. Thank gawd for SS!

My dear Mom wouldn't had much if it weren't for her SS benefits...it was a crucial part of her living, until she passed away.

SS is a total safety net for many.

[Ed Suspicious]

4. It's all my mom has.

Cutting it is not an option because we say so!

[hill2016]

7. so what you're saying is that

in 20 years time, Social Security is automatically cut 20%?

So how does that make people who believe that Social Security will be cut liars?

[migsan]

10. Social Security Statement

I would like someone to explain to me like a 5 year what this means?

Fine, raise taxes or raise the percentage what workers put into Social Security, but 77 cents out of dollar is not a positive outlook.

Just google example of Social Security Statement.



Without changes, in 2033 the Social Security Trust Fund will be able to pay only about 77 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.* We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations.
Social Security

[Romulox]

33. Let's cut benefits 23% *right now*, since it's no big deal!

[Enthusiast]

66. No one is advocating cutting benefits except Republicans (mostly).

We want to raise the cap to prevent such an eventuality.

[Scuba]

21. The fix for that is so simple that Congress could pass it in five minutes, if only ...

... they had the political will to do so.


All they have to do is eliminate the cap, so that all earnings are subject to SS taxes and not just the first $118,500. If earners above that level paid SS tax on all their earnings Social Security could be both enriched and expanded.

Fact is, greedy rich people don't want to pay.

[hill2016]

24. well

the problem is that many people disagree on which fix to use. You've proposed eliminating the cap while other people would rather cut benefits.

Also, if eliminate the cap, what do you do to their benefits when they retire?

[Scuba]

25. Lift the cap, exand and enrich benefits.

[Curmudgeoness]

46. So who do we hurt financially?

Do we kick the people who are collecting SS benefits because that is all that they have, or do we lift or eliminate the cap and "hurt" the wealthy?

I know where I stand on this one.

[Enthusiast]

62. The "other people" that would rather cut benefits are dirty Wall Street types with ulterior motives.

"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 [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54

[StarzGuy]

80. I'd say means test Social Security

Millionaires and billionaires don't need the money and they should look at the increase they pay as a public good.

[Yupster]

40. I think if you made two changes it would work politically

1. Raise the cap to unlimited

2. Bring everyone into social security who currently isn't in it. In many states teachers are not subject to social security. That is a huge hit to social security not getting those premiums from so many workers. You'll here politicians say the reason social security works is because everyone is in it, and then you look at the largest employer in town, the school district and you say, not quite everybody.

I think if you made these two changes together it would work politically as each side would take a hit.

[Scuba]

50. +1

[StarzGuy]

83. States that don't require teachers to to pay FICA taxes

I know that here in Arizona I had to pay FICA taxes. Also as a teacher on the Navajo reservation we also paid FICA taxes. I found this list on a Google search;
States in Which Public Employees Are Not Covered by Social Security
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia (certain local governments)
Illinois
Kentucky (certain local governments)
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio
Rhode Island (certain local governments)
Texas

I wonder if this is an accurate list

[Yupster]

96. In Texas

there are a few districts that pay into SS. The vast majority do not.

Has anyone ever heard an explanation of why teachers don''t participate in the universal program of social security? I have never heard an explanation.

[PSzymeczek]

89. Eliminate the cap.

And make all income subject to the tax, not just wage income.

[Populist_Prole]

12. The third kind

Those so-called progressives that are well heeled enough to not worry about it and willing to trade it away for some pet cause.

[merrily]

16. Not all, but a good number of limousine liberals don't want to be taxes to pay for your retirement

and senior medical needs, or anyone else's, anymore than Pete Peterson does.

[joshcryer]

17. 80% of benefits owed for the next 75 years = cut

[MFrohike]

19. It can't go broke

For all the hype of a separate collection, it's a general liability of the United States Government. The federal government quite literally cannot run out of dollars because, as the issuer of the dollar, they are an infinite resource for it. This isn't a matter of the much derided "printing" money, but is a matter of how the government does business on a daily basis. It's not necessary to collect taxes in order to spend money because the money only exists because the government either spent it into existence in the first place or recognized it as legitimate (bank loans). The only question that matters is whether the real resources to be bought with that money will be available at a price the beneficiaries can afford. The rest of it is accounting sleight of hand.

[Romulox]

42. This is simply false. The gov't can (and already has) cut benefits.

There is absolutely no sense that the government "has to" maintain benefits at any given level; they can (and already have, via extending the age for collection of full benefits to 69,) cut benefits at any time.

[doc03]

58. Also starting in 1983 with RR he made up to 50% of your SS

taxable and then Clinton raised it to 85%. The threshold for that tax was set back in 1983 and it has never been increased for inflation. Eventually everyone will be paying taxes on their SS if they have any income outside of their SS. I get a modest pension and it its taxed along with the SS in excess of the threshold which effectively taxes my pension at 35%.

[MFrohike]

71. Cool

I said it can't go bankrupt, I didn't say the Congress couldn't lie and screw retirees. My point is that the viability of Social Security is a matter of political will, not money. So, while I appreciate your comment, it's not remotely related to what I wrote.

[Romulox]

72. It can't go bankrupt because it has no defined obligations. nt

[6chars]

20. OPs last fact is critical - millionaires & billionaires

paying in would put a lot of concerns to rest.

[djean111]

23. Right now millionaires and billionaires do pay in - up to the cap, which needs to be raised.

I have learned to wait for the other shoe to drop when ANY politician uses the phrase "strengthen Social Security" - because some Democrats, a few years ago, said the way to strengthen Social Security was to just pay less out. And "strengthen" sounds so much better than "slashing", amIright?

I don't think there would be near the level of Social Security alarmist whinging if employers did not have to match contributions (if you are self-employed you have to pay that yourself). So I sometimes think of the ongoing Social Security attacks as the Kochs in one corner, adding up how much money they would save if there was no Social Security, and Jamie Dimon in the other corner, lusting over that huge pile of money, wanting to gamble with it, to extract fees from it. It must look like a perpetual gravy train to Jamie, attainable if only he could buy the right politicians.

[6chars]

27. that is true

i was self employed at one point, and when i was paying my 12.4% i was not thinking "this is great, i am strengthening ss" and then when i got a regular job, i thought "this is great, they're paying half of it."

[djean111]

29. The Social Security debate is a great example of how the 1%, the corporatists, the conservatives,

the Third Wayers, et al. create social wedges in order to detract from the real objective - keeping the money.

They blather on about personal responsibility (as if someone making very little money can save enough to live on), they set generations against each other, they present cutting social security payments in a Wilford Brimley "It's the right thing to do!" stage setting. No GOPer or DINO ever ever even whispers the words "raise the cap". There must be a pretty horrific punishment for that.

I really hope that asking candidates whether they would propose raising the cap is in the debates; I would not be surprised if it was a forbidden question. IMO it will take Bernie Sanders to even introduce the concept in a debate.

[Romulox]

32. Oh, but the "SS is *fine*!" people don't want to lift the cap. Would make SS "welfare", they say. nt

[Enthusiast]

63. The cap has been lifted many times. SS isn't welfare yet, no matter what Limbaugh says. n/t

[Romulox]

70. There's no logic to argue for any cap at all. nt

[Enthusiast]

75. Except to prevent millionaires from paying their fair share.

They are moving us in the direction of Greece by evading every possible tax as it is.

[Sam_Fields]

22. There is going to be a ~20% cut in SSDI next year

It is going to happen because the Republicans have already changed the house rules. Then if a Republican gets elected President in 2016 they will destroy SSA. IMHO.

[Enthusiast]

64. I don't think it was a rule change as much as a choice.

[still_one]

28. This is what disappoints me greatly. The big lie. Social Security is NOT going broke. The dirty

little secret is that Congress has been borrowing from the Social Security fund to finance other things, including the bush war in Iraq.

Solutions to any Social Security short fall, which is at least 25 years off is to raise the cap. Solution solved, if they are really that concerned. Eventually, the baby boomers that will start collecting will work themselves out of the system, and the subsequent generation will not have this problem, because the birth rate was less, and reverse the short fall, even if nothing is done.

What is worse then changing the COLA rules is not so subtly increasing the age for social security. It isn't necessary, and only serves to try to deny people benefits they have paid into for decades.

The challenges are with Medicare, and they are very solvable. In fact the ACA has allowed more benefits for those under Medicare by requiring preventative services such as annual wellness checkups, immunizations and tests for cancer, cholesterol and diabetes which are now covered without co-payments.

Other solutions involve a small increase in the payroll taxes, say 2 to 5%, and cutting wasteful spending from the military and other areas of government.

In fact increasing payroll taxes and cutting the military could very easily fund single payer, and the books would balance fine.

unfortunately, because of the political climate, single payers is not going to happen until at least the next census, where the gerrymandering in the House may be reversed. Of course anything is possible though.

[Romulox]

31. Social Security is insolvent during the lifetime of today's workers. Only Boomers think it is "fine"

Social Security has a $2.8 trillion surplus and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible person for nearly two decades. After that, even if we do nothing, it will pay out approximately 80% of benefits owed for the next 75 years.

Then let's just cut benefits 20% now, since it's not a big deal!

[padfun]

81. Cutting benefits is the worst case scenario

What works better is eliminating the cap.

Figure it out.

[Octafish]

34. Social Security is a New Dem/Third Way Target, thanks to Pete Peterson, the Presidents' Friend

Why Is Obama Taking Orders From A Secretive Billionaire?

By Thom Hartmann
Tuesday, 05 March 2013 15:16

Move over Koch brothers. Get out of the way Shelly Adelson. There’s another billionaire in town, and he’s doing all he can to privatize Social Security and Medicare programs.

Say hello to Pete Peterson.

Petersen is a Wall Street billionaire, who, according to The Center for Media and Democracy’s SourceWatch.Org, almost exclusively uses his wealth to back numerous organizations and public relations campaigns whose primary goals are to slash government funding to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

According to SourceWatch’s PetersonPyramid.org, in 2007, after making a fortune off of the public offering of a Wall Street private equity firm, Peterson pledged to spend a staggering $1 billion of his personal wealth to “fix America’s key fiscal-sustainability problems.”

A vast portion of that $1 billion is going to a shadowy astroturf supergroup campaign known as “The Campaign to Fix the Debt”. But don’t let the fairly innocuous title fool you.

As SourceWatch’s PetersonPyramid.org points out, in reality, the “Campaign to Fix the Debt” is just the latest effort by Peterson and a bunch of his billionaire friends and corporate cronies to cut away at Social Security and Medicare, all in the name of fixing America’s “debt problem”.

CONTINUED w/links, details and more nauseating facts...

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14952-why-is-obama-taking-orders-from-a-secretive-billionaire

[Enthusiast]

65. Huge +1! Way to go, Octafish!

Pete Peterson is one of the biggest culprits (scoundrels).

[n2doc]

36. When do we cut the military and spy budgets?

I see this posted a lot "it can keep going with a XXX cut". The Truth is it can keep going indefinitely without a cut, if we choose to spend money on maintaining it instead of blowing up people in other countries. How many Americans would die from a 20% cut in their SS benefits compared to terrorists? A quiet, lonely death in a freezing unheated shack is the same as dying in an explosion, as far as death goes. And faster.

[Enthusiast]

69. Social Security and Medicare are real security, not the faked up G W Bush Iraq War type security.

[ananda]

37. I know.

People who don't need it.

And people who don't think some others deserve it.

[MisterP]

43. "but Obama's proposal to gut it failed, therefore he never proposed it!"

[pansypoo53219]

49. i wonder if the 'green spud fix' is what is diminishing SS. or he is so bloody stupid he made sure

only the bottom paid the lions share of FICA.

[HFRN]

51. 3rd type --> THIRD WAY nt

[hifiguy]

88. Turd Wayers and Repukes are the only ones

shoveling this horseshit.

[Hoyt]

52. Very few Democrats want to cut social security. Some want to do something about it to ensure it

lasts for older folks AND younger ones who will be paying the tab for current retirees, before a GOP Prez takes over.

Unquestionably there are things that can be done to make it viable for the long-term, increasing the cap on taxable wages, some form of tax on income other than wages, etc.

But, sitting around and thinking it will be fine as is, is a big risk if a Republican is elected President and has a Republican dominated Congress. Or if we wait until another financial crisis hits us.

[Thinkingabout]

53. You can declare Social Security is solvent and does not need any changing, with the past reforms

it brought us from 2012 to about 2035. Some of the proposed Social Security reforms it will take us several years in the future. The reforms was to increase the full retirement age from 65 to 67. I can advise it is possible to live to 67 in order to receive full benefits. There was also an increase in the max cap.

The proposals some have is it increase the cap to $250,000. To increase the full retirement age to 69. Another is means testing, if you have assets over a certain amount the amount a person would receive would not happen or will be reduced. This would make it possible for our young folks to experience the Social Security many enjoy. One of the reasons why there is a big strain on Social Security is the number of those receiving increased a lot because the age of the baby boomers came of age.

Don't be so stingy towards the younger generations. We enjoyed good years of decent jobs with decent salaries and many enjoy the benefits of pensions. It takes both to survive.

[blackspade]

54. I was going to say crooks and enablers.

[rhett o rick]

57. We know where Sen Sanders stands on this issue, but where does HRC stand?

Has she ever mentioned raising the cap?

[Enthusiast]

67. Several years ago she was adamant about not raising the cap.

She insisted that raising the cap would be a tax increase on the middle class. I believe the cap at that time was around $97,000. The clip is on Youtube if you want to see it.

[rhett o rick]

73. Yes, if it is convenient. If not I can look it up. While we are at it, I am interested in finding

either a video or text of her recent speech where she said that growing the economy was the best way to help the people. Clearly not mentioning the growing wealth gap. Again if it's convenient. I haven't started looking yet.

[Enthusiast]

74. Short, but you get the point.

[rhett o rick]

82. She is continuing to sell the idea that rising tides lift all boats. She doesn't seem to be

interested in addressing wealth inequality. If the tide rises all boats then the wealth gap continues to widen. Besides, the rising tide bullcrap has never been true. The tide has been a tsunami for the wealthy for the last 30 years while the 99.9% has seen receding tides.

[jtuck004]

60. I thought you were going to say democrats and republicans. n/t

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

68. I was going to say rich people and dumb people.

Same thing, I guess...

[brewens]

77. Raise holy hell about any proposal to cut and grandfather in older people!

That's where I expect the biggest threat to come from. That's where the "I got mine" mentality will kill us. I BTW am probably in the age group they would try to win over by squeaking us in just under the wire. They'll expect many people like me to go along with big cuts or raising the eligibility age as long as I don't get screwed.

The only two options should be fix it or end it! Raise the cap and fix it or cut it all off immediately and cash everyone out as best they can. Anyone having collected more than they paid in would be shit out of luck! My reason for that strategy is that is what it will probably take to get the attention of many older Republican voters. Scare the crap out of them and they will probably wise up. Otherwise they will go along with any promise that keeps their check coming.

[YOHABLO]

79. You think those 'GD' Bankers don't want to get hold of that $2.8 trillion? Give me a break.

The rich don't want to pay their fair share since it really doesn't affect them. They're not worried about retirement, paying for medications, or rent. Oh hell, they've got their big portfolios and still only pay FICA on $118,000. Yeah that's real fair; while the rest of us have to pay on 100% of our income. The best thing we can do is get rid of the cap altogether. I know it won't happen but it has to be raised significantly or we will lose our benefits. My blood pressure is going up.

[NorthCarolina]

85. Yes, Republicans and Conservative Democrats...those two kinds of people. eom

[bvar22]

86. If you wanted to Raise-the-Cap, you should have voed for this guy:

That guy would have made a good President!