Obama: Social Security fix would be simple

[cory777]

Source: AP

Fri Feb 19, 9:52 pm ET

HENDERSON, Nev. – President Barack Obama says Social Security is slowly running out of money but that it can exist well into the future with a slight fix.

The system is funded with a tax on earnings, up to $109,000 a year. Obama says lifting that cap to tax a larger share of income would be one way to extend the system of monthly payments for retirees. It also would be unpopular with some.

Without an adjustment, Obama said Social Security will start to run out of money in about 20 years as more people begin collecting benefits.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100220/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_social_security;_ylt=Ao5cN3nTAH123PSljBKMbs.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNzOWNxZGZwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMjIwL3VzX29iYW1hX3NvY2lhbF9zZWN1cml0eQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzQEcG9zAzEEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYw

[AllyCat]

1. I really don't think I have a problem with that.

[throwfocus]

111. How is this idea a fix?

Raising the cap is effectively yet another tax increase with no exit strategy. All it does is allow those mismanaging the SS fund to further push there dooms date down the calender. Twenty years later we'll find we'll need to raise it from 129(speculative) to 159K. Typical Washington "fix"

Suggestions
1. 600 billion over ten years in Medicare Fraud reduction by:

Establish federal minimum prison sentences for Medicare Fraud. Period. Make it a serious crime against the state

Eliminate Fly-by-Nighters by nationalizing non patient care Medicare
While Medicare is a full federal program it is merely the underwriter for goods such as equipment, supplies, food and logistics.
Equipment manufactures and delivery will continue to be private, but patient interface must be conducted through a gov't entity.

2. Reel in matching funs for all elections. Now is the time to get a hold of it

This is can only be born from grass roots. In NYC we have four times matching funds for the city council. Its a crime. Public funding for campaigns is important, but it should be petitioned not automatic.

3. Let Japan have a contributing military and sell it to them.

[Truth2Tell]

124. 600 Billion in fraud reduction? And campaign matching $$?

You really believe that's where the problem lies? Really? Truly? What's in that tea you guys are partying with?

How about we make a people's "fix" and deduct SS from ALL income - including interest and investment income - but we still cap payouts? How about we then take all the surplus and fund social services of all kinds? And while we're at it, why not raise the marginal rates by double digits and reduce military/intelligence spending by half?

Put that plan in your teapot and steep it.

[lefthandedlefty]

138. Sounds like a good plan to me

[abelenkpe]

141. fraud reduction

would be good in addition to raising the cap.

[warm regards]

204. I would be screwed by your plan.

[napi21]

220. WHY? I worked for well over 40 y3qrs before I finally made enough $$

for a part of it not taxed by SS. I finally got a nice promotion and a nice raise with it. Why do you think you would be screwed? Medical costs keep increasing and YOU will need them some day. You may well have enough $$ to not have to depend on SS for your retirement, but I'm really sure you're not going to send your money back to the Feds because you just don't want it!

[warm regards]

234. Yes, I hit that threshold a few years ago as well.

And it has been nice to hold on to a few more of the fruits of my labor. Still, I have a hard time making ends meet--I need the extra money now.

[MH1]

235. Having been on both sides of the cap

but pretty near it for the greater part of my life, I always wonder what kind of material those ropes are made of, when someone has trouble making the ends meet under a salary like mine. Spun platinum, or what? Or perhaps I am being insensitive, and it is the failure of the "socialist" safety net that has caused your difficulty?

Yes I noticed your sig line. Cute. Not. But noted. :)

[24601]

248. So cap it at $100,000 and then don't tax the next $150,000. Pick it

up again and tax $250,000 on up to $500,000. Do something similar with Capital Gains and dividends - don't tax the 1st $100,000 of each.

[krkaufman]

131. Talk about a "Washington 'fix'"

Rather than addressing the costs of the social insurance system directly, by raising more funds to cover it directly and transparently, let's talk about modifying unrelated systems and issues.

One big problem with Social Security funding can probably be traced to how our income distribution has changed over the years, with more and more national income going to fewer and fewer people at the top of the income pile and well beyond the SS threshold.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. You're right, it's not a fix. Let's have NO CAP at all.

Go smoke that with your freeper buddies.


I don't know what your point about Japan's military is, but Japan has moved beyond the Defense Forces model, and has a capable military of it's own, capable of projecting force. Mostly with equipment we sold them. Pretty sure their legal caps on defensive capabilities only, and manpower limits are a thing of the past.

[fasttense]

240. I absolutely agree with you.

The caps on Social Security should be removed completely.

Would someone please explain to me why an individual making more than $100,000 per year should be exempt from a tax that people in poverty have to pay on every cent they earn?

What that tells me is that by virtue of making a lot of money you are better than the guy who spends every dime he earns in order to survive.

Where is the fairness in this?

[Orsino]

232. Fail. n/t

[Blue Hen Buckeye]

243. There should not be a cap at all..

It is a regressive tax, in fact in addtion to no cap they ought to make it progressive.

[JVS]

245. Because it fixes the problem.

[arbusto_baboso]

247. Engage in fantasy much?

Oh, and enjoy your very short stay here on DU.

[defendandprotect]

2. We should lift the cap, substantially . . .but Social Security is solvent to 2038 or beyond ...

and if all the money borrowed from Social Security were returned it would be

INFINITELY SOLVENT!!

Social Security is running HUGE SURPLUSSES every year -- borrowed by Bush, for one,

to pay for tax cuts for the rich and for the wars.

Social Security was NEVER inteneded to run a surplus -- it is a "pay as you go" system.

The SURPLUS is used to disguise the immense MIC/WAR budget!!

They also ran another scam in allegedly raising extra money for boomer retirements by

increasing FICA payments on poor and middle class. That extra funds are still being

collected -- but the money is used as a SLUSH FUND.

Currently, it's at least $150 BILLION a year!!

If not more?

[sandnsea]

5. Not exactly

The social security surplus has absolutely nothing to do with disguising the war budget. It was implemented back in 87 to cover the cost of baby boomer retirees. Yes it is used as a slush fund, and was also used by Clinton to pretend we had a surplus when we really didn't. Al Gore was right, that money needed to go in a lock box.

Anyways, do you have a figure that indicates that all the excess FICA money would fund social security and medicare? I've never seen a chart like that, would like to if it exists.

[defendandprotect]

7. Social Security Trust Fund is intended to be independent of the general budget -- it is not!!

And the fact that it is not "neutral" -- i.e., "pay as you go" --

puts its surplusses against any part of the budget -- but mainly hides the

overwhelming and obscene amounts that the Military industrial intelligence complext take --

Social Security has run a SURPLUS which has been increased over and again to raise more

SLUSH MONEY --

In fact, Poppy Bush wanted to raise more slush money by sending the IRS out after the poor.

The reaction to that idea by public was such disgust that they decided instead to raise

more slush money thru FICA. Allen Greenspan worked that out in the middle of the night!

Social Security and Medicare are two different programs --

And whatever difficulties Medicare has are correctable -- but meanwhile, I think we would

all agree that there is a moral responsibility for the government to fund whatever excess

needs to be funded.

Social Security -- by W Bush's own accountants -- confirmed that Social Security was

solvent thru 2038 -- and even beyond that! If all monies were returned, it would be

infinitely solvent --

Again -- two different programs --

[sandnsea]

11. Social Security and Medicare have the same problem

Not enough money. Medicare tax is a required payment under the FICA law, it's paid by businesses in the same check, same form, same time.

Yes Social Security has run a surplus, you don't need to tell me that. I said the Clinton surplus was FICA and should have been put in Al Gore's lock box.

It does not, however, have anything to do with Bush's wars.

You do know that Republicans called social security FDR's slush fund, right?

Regardless, we are where we are. I would still like to see the figures that show the surplus would fund social security forever.

[defendandprotect]

81. Social Security has a SURPLUS . . . and is solvent past 2038 . . .

and that's according to Bush's own accountants-!!

There could be many "claims" on the Clinton surplus -- I agree --

It could have been repaid to Social Security --

It could have paid off part of our debt --

Rather it went to Bush who blew it --

Re the MIC budget -- that is certainly part of the "general budget" --

Social Security is NOT intended to be in the "general budget" --

THEREFORE, it disguises whatever else is in the budget --

Activists say that it mainly disguises the MIC budget --

Again -- Social Security was intended to be a "pay-as-you-go" program and to NOT

run a surplus. Did it always have some surplus on hand. No doubt that is so.

If it had $100 in the account, would not Repugs have accused FDR of using it?

This is meaningless debate --

Greenspan/Bush contrived to raise the FICA quietly in the dead of night in Congress

in order to increase the funds to be used for their covert purposes.

And the burden is of the increases always fall on the poor and middle class.

We need to raise the cap or eliminate it --

Especially now with unemployment so high -- and the trade agreements still in play --

and Obama refusing to amend the trade agreements!!



PS: Just to acknowledge your comments about a "lock box" for Social Security funds to

prevent borrowing. Everyone agrees with that . . . HOWEVER . . . it would always permit

borrowing for war. Everyone agrees with that reality. Therefore, it is meaningless!!

[sandnsea]

96. Oy, where to start

You say yourself that social security has a surplus and they're spending it. Where would any surplus come from? FICA Taxes. That was the Clinton surplus. That is why Al Gore even brought up the lock box. This isn't a random "claim", it's a fact.

Medicare is not part of the general discretionary budget. It is funded through separate taxes that are paid through FICA.


Social Security has been set up through a trust fund from the very beginning. People paid in for 3 years before monthly benefits started being paid. The tax was increased in the 87 to fund the baby boom retirement.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

I don't know why you keep saying Greenspan and Bush raised FICA in the dead of night, it didn't happen and there's no way in the world it could have happened.

We most certainly need to honor the obligations to social security recipients when there is no longer a FICA surplus. If we had paid down debt, the way Clinton proposed, then when social security needed to be repaid, we could have used general funds the way we did in the 70s. That's how it's supposed to work. Since we didn't budget adequately, we will have to raise FICA taxes and the reason needs to be made clear. The surplus was a FICA surplus and it went to the rich in the form of the Bush tax cuts. I want my money back and I do not want my benefits cut any further than they already have been.

[defendandprotect]

144. I share your frustration -- but I'll try once more . . .

First -- I'll REPEAT what I said to you about the "Lock Box" idea --

And, btw, Al Gore was not the first or only one to suggest a "Lock Box" -- many have done so.

And, yes, of course, the Social Security SURPLUS comes from raising more money for Social Security

than is necessary. AGAIN, Social Security was intended to be a "pay-as-you-go-system" with NO

SURPLUS.

OK . . . back to the lock box.

The purpose of any "lock box" would be to PREVENT the surplus money from being taken for purposes

OTHER THAN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

HOWEVER . . . BECAUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES WILL ALWAYS PREDOMINATE ANY ISSUE, THESE FUNDS

would still be susceptible to being used by presidents for wars. W. Bush used SS Surplus $$

for tax cuts for the wealthy and for his wars.

Therefore, the very intent of the Lock Box is meaningless.

Additionally, I disagree with you that the Clinton "surplus" was FICA money --

Rather, the Clinton Surplus came from increasing taxes on the wealthy.


Medicare is not part of the general discretionary budget. It is funded through separate taxes that are paid through FICA.

Exactly what I am saying to you -- they are NOT intended to be in the GENERAL BUDGET!!!

However, what you are showing above with your pie chart INCLUDES SS and Medicare --!!!

And if you track info on the national budget that is what you will see --

DESPITE THE FACT THEY SHOULD NOT BE THERE!!!

And notice that in YOUR pie-chart, Social Security negates the War budget --

Now, run a pie chart which takes Social Security and Medicare out of the chart --

and let's see what PERCENTAGE of the total budget the War budget is. Try that!!

And if you're so totally unaware of the Greenspan/Congress increasing FICA in the middle of the

night, then there is little point in discussing this with you any further!!

It's an absolutely well know bit of information -- and in a number of books, as well.

"No way in the world it could have happened" . . . ??!!! Unfortunately, it did happen!!


And just in passing re this . . .

We most certainly need to honor the obligations to social security recipients when there is no longer a FICA surplus.

You seem to be suggesting that benefits payable under Social Security are dependent upon

Social Security running a SURPLUS ... no they are not. Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system

and the money required to pay benefit claims is raised as necessary.


If we had paid down debt, the way Clinton proposed,

Clinton could have done anything with the surplus money from his administration --

what he did was leave it for the next administration!!

Since Social Security borrowings are replaced with Treasury Securities/Notes . . .

they are collectable from the government.

Again -- Social Security right now is solvent past the year 2038 --

I imagine that unemployment is now having an effect on every source of revenue, including

Social Security. However, what we need to do there is stop the job losses and that is

dependent on overturning/repealing the trade agreements.

Obama has so far refused to even consider amending the trade agreements which are doing

such harm to the nation!

We do NOT need to raise FICA taxes . . . and even if we did at some future time it would be by

a miniscule amount --

The SIMPLEST way to do this ... AS OBAMA IS ACKNOWLEDGING ... is by raising the cap on Social

Security FICA payments -- raising the cap or eliminating the cap!!


That's about ALL I can do for you -- good luck!

[sandnsea]

180. We agree on raising the FICA cap

So I really don't know what you're screaming about.

However, I've explained the rest to you. That you're just wrong about the way these funds work and the way they've always worked. Social security is not a pay-as-you-go system and hasn't been for over 20 years. Before that it was set up through treasury funds, just like it is now, just not with the extent of excesses. However, there always were excesses, except for a few years in the 70s. In addition, there was no FICA increase in the 90s. And that the Clinton surplus was, in fact, a FICA surplus. It's easy enough for you to refute any of this. Provide a link. I did.

To close, I'll just repeat one of my previous posts to you - OMG - that is straight from the pages of right wing forums!!!

cya.

[defendandprotect]

194. Whilewe agree on much of this ... one of the problems here

is that you're a bit overly literal --

And, although this is more waste of my time, I'll try it . . .

Social security is not a pay-as-you-go system and hasn't been for over 20 years

What I said was that Social Security was intended to be a "pay-as-you-go" system and NOT

to run a SURPLUS.

That's a smart idea and we should return to it -- NO SURPLUS, NO BORROWING, NO SLUSH FUND

FOR ILL PURPOSES!!

There of course -- as I've mentioned at least once before -- would have been SOME Social

Security "surplus" -- even if it was $3,000...!! But that's a far cry from $250 BILLION!!

Again, overly literal --

Look, what you're arguing re the Clinton surplus is irrevelant -- what I'm trying to get

you to see is that it could be tagged to any source -- you want it to be FICA, OK ...

you got it.

And, as long as Treasury Notes were covering the borrowing from Social Security, then the

best thing to do with the FICA "surplus" would have been to pay down the debt and save

billions every day!!

That's what Clinton should have done --

But none of that was done -- and the money was left for W to squander -- and it simply adds

up to another loss for the American public!


PS: I've never read a right wing forum in my life so I wouldn't know --

but if you go far enough to the right, you're on the left . . . I guess!

[tonysam]

122. A lot of the baby boomers will have kicked off by then,

so whatever "shortfall" that is "projected," and remember it was the worst-case scenario projections, would eventually right itself after all of us baby boomer leeches die off.

[defendandprotect]

146. Agree with you . . .

IF you are saying that the right wing continues to try to destroy the public's

confidence in Social Security with lies and propaganda . . .

The "shortfall" is right wing myth -- and they used it to increase FICA in order to

create a slush fund for any use they wished!

As I was reciting above, Poppy Bush wanted to send the IRS out after the "poor" to

gather more funds in to use for his purposes. The public was so repulsed by that idea

that he and Greenspan turned to the idea of increasing FICA to enlarge the Social Security

Surplus and give them access to more loot!

This story is told quite often -- I didn't know about how it was done at the time -- but

evidently Congress did it in the middle of the night -- very quietly.

But the story is at least in a number of books.

So -- basically those paying into Social Security -- those who make $100,000 or less --

have been paying long in advance --- over decades -- for the boomers to retire while the

system was intended to simply raise FICA as it became necessary. And while the advance monies

have simply been used as a slush fund for GOP presidents!

Additionally, the surplus wasn't enough to satisfy Poppy Bush's greed and the FICA was raised

yet again. The wealthy in both cases are basically exempt from with the burden falling on

the poor and middle class.

[SnakeEyes]

156. Baby boomer leeches?

I take issue with this. Baby boomers have paid into the system like everyone else and have a right to the money they paid in. And since when have we progressives started referring to taking money from government programs as being a leech?

[sandnsea]

179. Excuse me?

Let's see now, if we've used FICA as a slush fund so we didn't have to raise taxes on the whiny Gen Xers asses, then who exactly has been the leeches?

Uh huh, you're a teachers' advocate. Riiight.

[jwirr]

88. I like the lock box idea but Social Security makes money by borrowing

it out just like any other fund. I have a few questions. Does the government pay interest on the money it takes out for other programs and if so how much? If we do not borrow it to the government then who do we borrow it to? Wall Street? That is the same as privatizing it, isn't it?

[sandnsea]

93. Maybe we could borrow it to China

instead of borrowing from them. Point is, when the time comes to pay back these obligations, cuts to the program aren't acceptable because Bush gave the surplus away in the form of tax cuts to the rich.

[defendandprotect]

147. Again ... the idea of a "Lock Box" was suggested by many . . .

HOWEVER, as just about everyone in Congress pointed out, the Social Security

surplus money could not be protected from "national security" claims -- i.e.,

money for war. So in reality there was NO WAY to truly protect the surplus from

borrowing by a president. PLEASE reflect on that -- !!!

Money borrowed from Social Security is replaced with Treasury Notes/Securities --

In other words, Social Security is basically LENDING money to the government and Social

Security does collect interest on that money thru the instrument of the securities.

[Iowa]

29. I don't believe that is quite correct...

"Social Security -- by W Bush's own accountants -- confirmed that Social Security was solvent thru 2038 -- and even beyond that! If all monies were returned, it would be infinitely solvent"

When you say that all the money must be returned, it leaves the wrong impression. The Social Security Trust Fund holds treasury securities. All the surplus that has been collected since the 80s... it's all there. It has been invested in US Treasury Securities.

There's a common misconception that the "money" in the trust fund has been spent, which is a ploy by the right to mislead the public into believing that the trust fund has been raided and left with nothing but "worthless IOUs", and that's utter bullshit designed to undermine faith in the SS system. The treasuries in the SS Trust Fund are just as solid and just as valuable as the treasury securities held in the portfolios of investors everywhere. In fact, the securities in the fund have some advantages that marketable securities don't. I own treasury securities. Most investors do. When referring to my treasury securities, I don't say, "I went out and invested my money in a bunch of worthless IOUs"... or "I will be solvent when all my money is returned". No. I choose to invest in treasury securities because such securities are BETTER than cash. The same holds true for the SS Trust Fund.

So what's the problem? There really isn't a much of a problem with the SS system. There are a few actuarial type issues that can be fixed fairly easily, as President Obama stated in the article. And he is absolutely correct. Even if nothing is done, SS benefits can continue to be paid at the present rate until 2037, at which point the trust fund would be depleted. At that point, incoming payroll taxes would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083 (long after all of us are dead). So rather than do nothing now, and reduce benefits by 25% in 30 years, it makes sense to make some modest adjustments now, like raising the cap.

Bottom line: there is no major problem with Social Security. The concern lies with the government's long-term ability to honor its debts, but that is not an issue specific to Social Security. It's an issue that applies equally to all treasury security investors - and that includes everyone from Warren Buffett, to the Social Security Trust Fund, to China, to the millions of people all over the world (like me) who own I-Bonds, TIPS, and Treasury Bonds/Notes/Bills. You can start worrying about the Trust Fund when investors stop buying treasury securities and unloading the ones they have en-mass. All this angst about the lack of "money" in the trust fund is mis-information being spread by right-wingers who would love nothing more than to renege on the treasury securities in the trust fund, while cashing in on the treasury securities in their own portfolios. We can all help to fight their propaganda by studying the issue and correcting misinformation when we hear it. Because there's a lot of misunderstanding out there. I see more misinformation (even on DU) than correct information. There are a lot of young people who don't understand how the system is designed to work and have been convinced that Social Security won't be there for them. This, of course, is a lie. We need to convince them that the system is for them too.

So... your comment about the fund being "infinitely solvent" if all the money is returned isn't quite correct. The "money" is all there. It isn't cash, it's actually better than cash. And there's really no such thing as infinite solvency. There are constantly evolving actuarial type issues and economic factors that require periodic re-adjustments to reflect changing factors. What we need to fight, and fight vigorously, is any notion that Social Security should be singled out as a culprit that is in any way responsible for the national debt. The debt was created by irresponsible spending on war, corporate welfare, irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. Social Security has absolutely nothing to do with it. We also need to fight any bullshit about Social Security being insolvent. The program is sound. We need to completely re-frame the argument and do so based on facts.

Anyone interested can start by reading this:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n2

[twitomy]

38. Your correct...to a point....

The question is.....Will the govt have the $$$ to pay back those IOU's? Yes you might say they will just as they will for all the other T-Bill holders....How will they do it? By issueing NEW T-Bill to get the money to pay the coming due OLD T-Bills. In other words, further increasing the national debt. Somewhere along the line the debt is going to be unsustainable. There is already
nervousness in the financial markets over this issue.

[Iowa]

168. How we frame the issue is important...

"Will the govt have the $$$ to pay back those IOU's?"

First, we have got to stop using the term "IOUs". There is a negative connotation associated with that term that conjures up the image of someone giving their shiftless relative a $20 bill... the relative handing over a dirty, crumpled-up piece of paper with "IOU $20" scrawled on it... and the guy loaning the $ having no real expectation of being paid back. This is not an accurate portrayal, not even close, and the simple act of using that term feeds into the propaganda being spewed by the right. We've got to stop using that term. The general public doesn't really understand how the system works, so they latch onto psychologically-loaded terms like "IOUs" and form their impressions accordingly. How we frame this really does matter. The truth is, all bonds are debt. That's what bonds are. Furthermore, the bonds held in the Social Security Trust Fund are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. government. And in today's investment world, there is no better guarantee than that. In terms of quality, this is as about as good as it gets. Unfortunately, understanding the SS system requires some knowledge of the investing world (which most people don't have), so it's very easy for the right-wing to mold peoples' opinions in a way that undermines their faith in our sound SS system.

"The question is.....Will the govt have the $$$ to pay back those IOU's? Yes you might say they will just as they will for all the other T-Bill holders....How will they do it?".

This is not an issue specific to Social Security. The ramifications resonate far and wide, throughout our economy and the economies of the world. And it's not just confined to treasury investors.

How will they deal with the debt? If I had to guess, I'd say that taxes will probably be raised and spending will probably be cut. But your guess is as good as mine. Soaring deficits are not sustainable, so that window will close soon enough. Inflating away some of it will probably occur at some point. But the main thing we can do, IMO, is to get accurate information out there about the Social Security system, beat back the lies, and help people (especially young people) understand that it is there for them too. The right would like nothing more than to renege on the bonds in the trust fund, while expecting that the bonds in their portfolios be honored. The only way they will be able to do that is by convincing people that the system is insolvent, or worthless, or in some way responsible for the budget deficits. Their campaign is based on lies, sleight-of-hand, and obfuscation. It is true that both the debt and the deficit are real, and they must be addressed. But these runaway deficits were created by irresponsible Bush tax cuts, runaway defense spending, wars about nothing, and corporate welfare. In other words, it is the wealthy who have taken the money and run up the debt, and they, therefore, are the ones who should pay it back. The truth is on our side, and the truth is a very powerful thing.

There is already nervousness in the financial markets over this issue.

Not really. The current yield on 30-year treasury bonds is 4.7%. Five-year notes are at 2.45%. Two-year notes are at less than 1%. Twenty-year TIPS are at 2.11%, and are in a trading range that hasn't much for quite a few years. If the market was nervous, it wouldn't be willing to accept such returns for its "risk". The truth is, the market fully expects to be repaid in full and with interest. At this point the Federal fiscal situation remains manageable. It bears watching, but it would be premature to bail. IMO. And when it comes right down to it, if you're seeking safety, where else are you going to go?

[twitomy]

178. Yes I agree...

And as you said the issue with how the govt is going to pay off those T-Bills is far more than just a SS issue. IF the Feds would have just put the money as cash in a "lock-box" we wouldnt be having this conversation. Its seems the more the Feds get from the taxpayers, the more it wants.

I wish I could be as unconcerned as you about the debt..The day of reckoning is going to come sooner
rather than later is something drastic isnt done.

[Zhade]

236. Thank you for taking the time to comment on this. I've learned a lot from your posts on the matter!

Just wanted to say, you helped someone learn today. : )

[Enthusiast]

39. Yes!

The objective of the corporatist is to privatize social security. To accomplish this they are using the M$M to convince the American people of social security's insolvency.

[mbperrin]

66. Well said! Social Security is in good shape and could be put into

magnificent shape with just an increase in the cap for withholding.

Easiest way to steal something is to convince someone it's worthless so that they'll put it out by the curb for pickup.

At times like these, I wish I did believe in a hell, because surely the bastards who are trying to steal ordinary working peoples' retirements would burn there hotly.

[sandnsea]

71. The 2000 surplus was a social security surplus

That was the Bush tax cuts. Before we just increase withholding, wouldn't it be a good idea to make it crystal clear that the reason those people are paying more is because they're the ones that got the surplus in the form of a tax cut?

[defendandprotect]

152. The Clinton "surplus" came from an increase in taxes on the wealthy . . .

for one --

You could also say it was a "debt" surplus --

when so much money is owed by our government -- including the HUGE amount due daily

as SIMPLY INTEREST on the debt!!

You could also say it was a "war" surplus --


We owe huge amounts of money -- any surplus should be paid against all of our debt.

And that's what Clinton should have done!

[sandnsea]

183. Here. Links for you

It's clear the budget surpluses were going to come from FICA, not taxes on the rich although Clinton's tax increases helped fund many programs we wouldn't have had otherwise, including investments in the economy. The tax cuts the rich got in 2001 was just more gravy that came out of our pockets.

Roughly...

Income Taxes in 2000 1.2 trillion
Social Security 643.8 billion

http://usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2000_0.html#usgs302

Spending

Pensions 453.9 billion
Other spending 1.335 trillion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2000_0.html#usgs30210

[defendandprotect]

187. Vs the debt, the "Clinton surplus" could be said to have come from any source . . .

don't know what you're trying to prove with this -- ??

But if you look at the budget, most of our spending is on the MIC --

End, the wars --

Overturn the trade agreements --

Create jobs --

[sandnsea]

189. Correct budget assessment matters

You're the one that said they were using social security as a slush fund. Then when I give you the figures to show you that indeed, the only excess in the budget was from social security, you deny it.

They want to tell working class people that we don't pay our share, when the fact is the excess could have gone to health care all these years.

Certainly there are other issues in the discretionary budget, no question. They need to be reduced so that they can pay us back the FICA they took (through fully funding our social security benefits), along with raising taxes on the people who took it.

[defendandprotect]

191. We're in agreement . . .

As Gore Vidal has always ably pointed out . . .

Americans pay and pay and pay and what they get for it is a MIC and that's all --

not even health care!!!

And most of our gains by labor have been overturned -- hours worked, vacations, pension

funds destroyed.

Who's arguing any of this???

And if you look at any view of the Federal Budget, MIC is by percentage the largest item

in the budget.

[olegramps]

67. Thanks for the information. That is why I come here.

[sandnsea]

70. There won't be money to pay benefits soon

Those benefits will have to come out of the federal side of the budget, the treasury securities, to honor what it owes to the social security trust fund. The social security trust fund is money from working class Americans. It is the tax money that they say we don't pay. In the sense that it is not a worthless IOU, you're right. They owe us that money, one way or the other.

But they did use the excess money as a slush fund, and the "surplus" to justify giving tax cuts to the rich. Damn skippy they should pay it back. Any argument that omits that fact continues to allow the right to make excuses to diminish the viability of the social security program.

[defendandprotect]

153. That is nonsense . . . Social Security is SOLVENT thru 2038 and beyond . . .

and that is based on the "pay-as-you-go" system it is intended to be --

And tremendous surplusses have been raised to protect any claims beyond 2038 by

boomers. That's reflected in the US Treasury Securities which the Trust Fund holds.


Again, as Obama has made clear, we need to lift the cap on Social Security where anyone

making above $109,000 is exempt --

and I'd be in favor eliminating the cap entirely!!

[Iowa]

200. I wish what you are saying was the case...

... but as sandnsea states, the SS system will need to begin drawing from the trust fund fairly soon. That is likely to occur in 2016, and it is estimated that by 2037 the trust fund surpluses will be spent. At that time there would likely be enough incoming payroll taxes to cover SS benefits at about 75% of previous levels. This is the most likely scenario if nothing is done. So while some minor tweaks are needed to prevent benefit reductions three decades from now, the system is quite sound. It's not quite as sound as you state, but it is sound nonetheless.

[Babel_17]

105. Truth (nt)

[Nederland]

108. Good post

Correct on all accounts, all the way down. Debt is debt, regardless of who holds it, and the issue of repaying our debts has nothing to do with Social Security.

[JDPriestly]

133. Thanks. Your post is reassuring.

I tried to figure this out the other day -- woke up doing numbers in my head -- and I figure there is a problem with Medicare funding but that a public option and universal health insurance for life would make the problem with funding Medicare manageable. I suspect that a lot of members of the Senate are finally understanding that you can't balance the budget without health care insurance reform.

[defendandprotect]

148. What you quoted are TWO independent statements . . .

First -- Social Security -- as confirmed by Bush's own accountants -- is SOLVENT thru 2038
and even beyond.

Second -- having NOTHING to do with the first statement --
If all the money borrowed from the Fund were returned to Social Security, it would be
INFINITELY SOLVENT!


Obviously, the Treasury owes Social Security money --

and, obviously, right wing propaganda seeks to create FEAR -- as usual -- to frighten the

public.

One of the right wing campaigns over the last decades was prompted by the WSJ and carried

out by a right winger whose name I don't recall at this moment -- but the idea was

.... "Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" --

[Iowa]

181. I'm not sure what you mean...

I agree with your first statement. The SS system is solvent. And I understand that your second statement has absolutely nothing to do with the first.

But it's your second statement that I stumble on, and maybe it's just me not understanding what you're saying:

"If all the money borrowed from the Fund were returned to Social Security, it would be INFINITELY SOLVENT!"

I don't know what you mean. The money you speak of was invested in U. S. Treasury Securities. Those securities are held by the Social Security Trust Fund. It's all there - every cent. If those treasury securities were all sold tomorrow and converted to cash, it is estimated that the SS system would be able to continue to pay benefits at the current rate until 2037. In other words, if all of the money loaned was "returned" as you suggest (by cashing in the securities), SS benefits could continue to be paid at the current rate until 2037 - not infinitely. In 2037, benefits would need to be reduced by 25% and could continue at that rate until 2083.

"Obviously, the Treasury owes Social Security money"

Well, yes... in the same sense that the Treasury owes me money for my I-Bonds, TIPS and Treasury Notes, they also owe money to SS. But I don't want that money now! I prefer to own treasury securities. The SS trust fund is no different. If I were managing the the Social Security trust fund, I wouldn't want to cash in now because I don't need the cash now. Cash is generally a crappy investment that fails to keep pace with inflation, so I want only enough cash to meet my immediate needs. The same holds true for Social Security. In 2016 they will need some cash. At that point, incoming FICA will not be sufficient to cover all benefits. Incoming FICA will cover the vast majority of it, but they will need to cash in a small portion of the treasury securities to cover the rest.

In other words, the system simply doesn't need to cash in ALL of the securities today, and it wouldn't make sense to do so, just like it wouldn't make sense for me to convert my I-Bonds, TIPS and Treasury Notes to cash until I need the cash. Why would I convert it to cash now? And what would I do with it? Put it in my checking account and earn one-tenth of one percent and let the bank loan it out and profit from my money? Hell no! That would make absolutely no sense. The point is, it wouldn't make sense for Social Security to convert all of their (our) treasury securities to cash (or treasury bills) either. To do so would actually have a negative effect on the system's solvency, because doing so would reduce the fund's yield.

As one who has invested for many years, I learned fairly early on that no asset is bullet-proof, and that cash is one of the worst investments there is, especially for long-term investments; and you don't get any longer term than Social Security. You seem to be suggesting that all the money borrowed from the SS trust fund should be returned, and if that were to happen, the system would be solvent "infinitely". Well, to make that happen the folks who manage the SS trust fund would need to convert all of the treasury securities to cash. If they were to do actually that, it would actually make the system less solvent, not more solvent.

[defendandprotect]

190. It's a liberal assessment and not made by me --

But it's your second statement that I stumble on, and maybe it's just me not understanding what you're saying:

"If all the money borrowed from the Fund were returned to Social Security, it would be INFINITELY SOLVENT!"

That's not something that I coined or created -- I'm repeating to you what others who study

our situation said -- liberal slant on this, of course.

Now -- you can take that statement in a number of ways ...

You can take "infinity" for what it actually means -- solvent forever ...

Or you can take it that it means that the fund would never require another dime to be put

into it because so much money would compound like grains of rice?

And, do you see anyone arguing with you that Treasury notes replace the borrowing?

I don't --


Amazing how this stuff goes on and on without any real point being made -- especially on

the specific subject -- a regressive tax on poor and middle class and a need to increase

the cap!

[Iowa]

202. OK, I can see now that you're just repeating what you think you heard...

Your comments all have some elements of truth in them, but they are also riddled with conceptual errors that would require too much time to unravel. This stuff requires some study and an underlying grasp of some basic investment concepts. You have clearly latched on to some erroneous information. Cling to it if you wish, but be very sure you are right before pushing it as fact.

[defendandprotect]

216. Social Security is more real than than our fake economy . . .

OK, I can see now that you're just repeating what you think you heard...

Not not something what I think I heard --

Rather, I'm fairly sure about what I've read over the last 25 years or so --

OTOH . .

"Investment concepts" -- anyone who believes in capitalism needs to rethink it --

especially if they've been taught economics -- !!

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system --

We need economic democracy if we want a democracy --

Capitalism is about moving the wealth and natural resources of a nation from the many

to the few.

Most of the world long ago recognized that -- it's our turn!

[Iowa]

219. This thread is not about the merits of a capitalistic system - it's about Social Security...

Nevertheless, I wouldn't be so quick to blow off the need to understand a few investment basics - if for no other reason than to keep from being fleeced. Most people avoid delving into the subject, and many pay dearly for it.

Nevertheless, I mentioned the need to understand some basic investment concepts because people who don't have such knowledge are more easily misled on issues pertaining to the Social Security system. Or perhaps they might read something about the system and be more likely to misinterpret what they read, or lack enough knowledge to recognize obvious fallacies.

Sometimes in order to understand an issue, it helps to have some very specific knowledge. Opinions are easy; there's really no knowledge required - no real right or wrong answers. Facts, on the other hand, are more difficult. This thread, unlike most threads on DU, is mostly fact based.

[defendandprotect]

228. Social Security is a social program being attacked by capitalism . . . !!

If you've given any thought to economics from the highest perspective you'd get that reality!!

It is because of corrupt capitalism that consumers have to be highly cautious these days of

even buying a toaster over! Needless to say, the new bankruptcy laws are another work of

criminal capitalism.

If you use the term "investment" right now in regard to capitalism you're pushing a lie --

We are NOT "investing" in anything in America any longer --

If you have to be a lawyer to avoid credit card fleecing -- or "liar loans" then it is our

elected officals and corporations which should be penalized, not the public!

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.

As far as I can see anyone who wants to know something about Social Security or the "economy"

is going to gain nothing by reading your posts.

You might also think about curbing some of that arrogance --

[still_one]

58. You are absolutely right, and the sad thing is it is intentionally being misrepresented

Also, after the baby boomers it should also become solvent again

but the biggest problem is what you said, they use it as a slush fund. That is what Gore's lock box was all about, to stop that nonsense, and that Obama doesn't address these issues in the article, is another disappointment for me about him

[asdjrocky]

102. Thank you.

No one, especially our politicians seem interested in the truth.

They always act like SS is running out next week.

I get so sick of being constantly lied to.

[asolarski]

109. defendandprotect - That is wrong

defendandprotect "and if all the money borrowed from Social Security were returned it would be INFINITELY SOLVENT!!"

Even without knowing the current figures this makes no sense. First of all the money WILL BE RETURNED as the SS system needs it and cashes in the treasury bonds issued to "borrow" the money to begin with. Call them IOUs if you want but they are as rock solid as any US government debt held by China or Wall Street or in your personal retirement portfolio. The whole system is designed to build up a surplus in good times only to be drawn down as needed.

How long it would take to completely deplete the surplus depends on too many unknowns to know. Economic growth, productivity gains, demographic shifts, policy changes, advances in medicine, future elective wars of aggression, natural disasters, etc.

Current estimate vary but they all do see the surplus being consumed over the next several decades and eventually running out. The change proposed here could make it solvent virtually indefinitely, but your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the current situation. That doesn't help foster a meaningful discussion.

That said, the proposal is an excellent idea. Only why cap it at all? I pay SS tax on 100% of my income, why shouldn't Ken Lewis? I assume my family pays more than his since I would guess his wife doesn't work so he's paying on $109,000. My wife and I are individually capped at $109,000, but together we pay SS tax on $125,000, every damn dime we earn.

Not to mention the way these people find ways of reclassifying their income to avoid SS tax entirely. It's only earned income that is taxed. If it's unearned it's taxed lower as income to begin with and is completely exempt from SS tax. That's pretty messed up.

[defendandprotect]

154. We are in basic agreement on specifics . . .

Anything borrowed from Social Security will be repaid -- agree with you --

Where you seem to have a question is in the two INDEPENDENT statements I made --

Let me go over them again --

Without any consideration of any surplus repayment . . .

'SOCIAL SECURITY IS SOLVENT THRU 2038 AND BEYOND .... ' -- !!!


New statement -- having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FIRST STATEMENT --

"If all monies owed to Social Security were returned -- and they will be --

Social Security would be INFINITELY SOLVENT --"

In other words, we have so over-collected FICA money that there would be almost

no need to raise any more funds!!!

Or -- at least -- that's what I've read on this subject --

And what I read is basically liberal/progressive acivist/organization info --

and liberal/progressive authors like Wm. Greider, etal --

[mwooldri]

208. I propose removing the cap altogether...

... but at the present cap level reduce the amount of Social Security tax down to something like 1%. I suppose the cap could be hiked a little bit but introducing a small (yes very small) SS tax above the cap would help bring in the funds.

[ArcticFox]

3. Two words to get the middle class to love him:

DONUT HOLE. Tax earnings up to, say $80,000, no tax on $80,001 to, say $250,000, and then tax income over $250,000 again.

This would immediately enamor those making between $80K and $109K to the President.

Such a change also makes sense when you understand that those making lots of money used to provide pensions for their employees. They's stopped doing this for the large part. It's about time we do something to make them take care of their fellow man again.

[DesertFlower]

21. that makes perfect sense.

[vaberella]

41. No it wouldn't.

Because if we take the no rise in taxes on people who make under 250,000 a year, majority of American's don't believe it. They think he raised taxes. How can you honestly think they'll be enamored by this? They wouldn't know either way. You give the American people way too much credit.

[jmowreader]

51. Adjust your numbers a bit and you've got a winner

Right now the "wage base" (what the Social Security people call the cap) is $106.800. Make THAT the lower end of the hole--most people with the exception of Norquist disciples and teabaggers think it's fair--and set the upper end to $250,000.

[Trillo]

95. Progressive? Or not? Yet another iteration of loop-holes.

Let the poorest be in the hole, say, incomes from $1 to 106K, and anything above that gets Social Security taxes. If it doesn't earn enough from the richest of the rich to pay for everyone, then lower the 106K until it does. This would make Social Security's witholding structure progresSive.

[mopinko]

115. then it would be welfare.

it would be unsupportable as such.

[suston96]

4. It's not broken.

Drop the unemployment down under 5% ....with jobs....jobs.....jobs!

Now....now.....now!

Yes, retirements will grow but if the jobs and the economy don't keep up with the population growth........then Social Security will be the least of our problems

[defendandprotect]

9. True unemployment rate is more like 17.5% or even more . . .

GOP has been changing all the government statustics on unemployment, inflation, etal --

Unemployment used to include the military -- because soldiers did usually come home!

Used to include the long term unemployed -- not anymore!

Many also working part time - underemployed!!

[fasttense]

30. Unemployment used to include the military

Yes, so few people remember the outrage when Reagan changed the statistics to include the military in the employed numbers. It was as if Reagan was saying there is a job opening every time one of our military gets killed. It is outrageous to include our military as employed in order to decrease the unemployment numbers.

Eventually all our troops will have to come home, but RepubliCONS don't see it that way.

[FBaggins]

47. Both are incorrect

The change that was made (don't know if it was raygun) - was between "not employed OR in the labor force" and "in the labor force and employed"

That has little impact on the unemployment rate because it changes both the numerator and denominator by the same amount.

Also, unemployment has always included the "long term unemployed" as long as they were looking for a job. If you never stop looking, you never drop off the count.

[defendandprotect]

74. As I understand it the current records do NOT include long term unemployed ... nor ...

those working part time because they can't find a full time job --

17.5% is the figure -- and I'd say it's probably much higher -- and has

been for a long time.

In fact, Obama's ACTUAL words the other day were that the stimulus had

"saved America from a DEPRESSION" -- that word was changed quickly.

As far as I know, the military was always included in unemployment figures --

needless to say, when they come home they need jobs.

Along the way the GOP has changed all government statistics and manner of record keeping

which is giving us a false picture of what is really going on --

Also keep in mind that people who are unemployed for long periods of time tend to

stop looking. They are still unemployed where they would prefer to be employed.

Our statistics used to recognize that reality.

[FBaggins]

112. Nope... you're counted as long as you're looking for a job

You're even counted on the more inclusive U4,U5 and U6 figures (the last being what people now call the "real" unemployment rate) if you stop looking for a job... as long as the reason you stop is that you are "discouraged" (just don't think there are any jobs out there for you).

But even the "headline" (U3) unemployment rate includes long-term unemployed as long as you continue to meet the definition of unemploymnet (i.e., looking for a job and available to take one if offered).

As far as I know, the military was always included in unemployment figures --

No. The military doesn't count as employed or unemployed. The unemployment rate is based on the civilian non-institutional (prison etc) workforce.

[defendandprotect]

149. Again, the military used to be counted as "unemployed" -- meanwhile . ..

let's accept your other information on long term unemployed --

However, the true unemployment rate is 17.5% or more --

and I would say that we are probably nearer to a Depression than many elites

would like Obama to divulge to the public!!!

[FBaggins]

176. And again... no... that's wrong.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make.

In order to be "unemployed" you had to be IN the workforce, but OUT of a job. The military was not part of the "civilian non-institutional" category. They weren't counted as "employed" but also weren't counted as "unemployed".


However, the true unemployment rate is 17.5% or more --

Depends on what you mean by "true" and "unemployment". That's only correct if you count as unemployed millions of people who HAVE jobs... as well as a bunch of people who aren't even LOOKING for jobs. Historically (and internationally) that hasn't been the case (for the headline U3 number). See below.

and I would say that we are probably nearer to a Depression

Well... we were certainly nearer than we have been in a long time. But it wouldn't be accurate to use that "real" number to claim that because it wouldn't be comparing apples to apples. If you want that U6 number to be the "real" unemployment, then you need to adjust the depression figures the same way. When you do that you end up with a MUCH higher figure for that time period than today.

[defendandprotect]

188. Sorry, but military used to be included in unemployed . . .

because basically they were unemployed -- they did not have jobs in the private sector!

Presumably you didn't see the articles only a week ago posted here at DU!

Why presume that anyone here reads?

Again -- did you read what I said about Obama's description of where we are --

"Depression" . . .

Again -- I don't know what you're trying to prove here --

but it's a waste of my time --

Bye --

[FBaggins]

195. When? Prove it.

You're simply wrong. You've been provided the definition and I'm pretty sure that you're been provided links. Did you read them? The military were never considered unemployed.

Presumably you didn't see the articles only a week ago posted here at DU!

I saw your post on DU too... does that make it fact? I've seen dozens of such articles for years now.

The "real" unemployment claims confuse those who don't understand what they're refering to. There's nothing "hidden" there and nothing new. The government has (for decades) reported a number of alternative measured for unemployment (labeled U1-U6). U3 is the "headline" number that people most commonly associate with unemployment, but the others are all reported every month. The ONLY change is a conversation about which number should be considered the "real" number. U6 measures not only people who are unemployed by the commonly understood definition, but people who are UNDERemployed... or "discouraged" or "marginally attached".

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Again -- I don't know what you're trying to prove here --

Not trying to "prove" anything. Just trying to educate. Lifting people out of ignorance is a hobby of mine.

Sorry that seem ineffective on you. I'll try again.

Unemployment Rate Definition


The labour force is defined as the number of people employed plus the number unemployed but seeking work. The participation rate is the number of people in the labour force divided by the size of the adult civilian noninstitutional population (or by the population of working age that is not institutionalised). The nonlabour force includes those who are not looking for work, those who are institutionalised such as in prisons or psychiatric wards, stay-at home spouses, kids, and those serving in the military. The unemployment level is defined as the labour force minus the number of people currently employed. The unemployment rate is defined as the level of unemployment divided by the labour force. The employment rate is defined as the number of people currently employed divided by the adult population (or by the population of working age). In these statistics, self-employed people are counted as employed.

[defendandprotect]

197. When I have some time to waste . .

I'll take a look --

But this is something I read a very long time ago --

and was shocked -- why would they include the military?

So I remember it well --



Bye --

[FBaggins]

199. You don't remember anyone ever lying to you?

Or telling you something that was wrong? :)

Either way... here's the best place to start.


http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques3

[defendandprotect]

201. Only you --

:)

[EFerrari]

98. Isn't that count based on people who at one time got unemployment

benefits?

[FBaggins]

107. No.

There is no connection at all between the collection of benefits and the unemployment rate. The people who do the survey don't even ask.

If that WAS where the number came from, it would be MUCH lower than the current rate. The next time you see an article talking about the initial jobless claims number (usually weekly on TH)... drill through to the original release. You'll see an "insured unemployment rate". The current rate is 3.5% (roughly double what it was a year and a half or so ago).

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20100212.htm

[EFerrari]

118. Oh, I see, thanks. n/t

[FBaggins]

119. No problem. It's an incredibly common belief. n/t

[defendandprotect]

150. This is frustrating because these articles on 17.5% unemployment

were only up here a short time ago --

I'll see if I can recapture one of the articles later --

However, in Obama's statement the other day re the stimulus . . .

the original headline read: "Obama says stimulus saved us from a Depression" --

the last word was quickly changed.

Byron Dorgan also IMO came close to using that word recently and then reverted to

"Recession."

I think we've been lurking in the severe recession/slight depression area for a long

time.

And, I think we might have recently gotten closer to it -- and I doubt Elites/corporates

want Obama to let that loose!!

However, IMO, if we don't get Obama to at least amend those trade agreements and

re-regulate capitalism - Glass-Steagall -- we will be in one hell of a mess.

I don't mean only a Depression ---

[Nederland]

104. I don't think that is correct

The GOP hasn't been "changing all the government statistics on unemployment, inflation ,etc." It simply doesn't have that power. It is true that in 1983 Reagan changed the regular report to split out the U-5 rate into two separate rates, U-5a (combined rate with military) and U-5b (civilian only rate). That wasn't an actual change to the survey however, it was merely a change in reporting so that you could see the difference between the rates with and without military personnel if you wanted to. The press was free to report either number depending on what they felt was the more accurate measure, but it never really mattered because the rates usually only differed by one tenth of a percent.

To my knowledge, the only time the BLS has actually changed the way they gather unemployment data was in 1994, and that was during Clinton. That change wasn't really a partisan one at all, it was something various economists had been pushing for years. Here is a summary:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

[defendandprotect]

151. I disagree . . . and I've watched them do it via C-span ....

re inflation -- they've been doing it for decades --

As far as unemployment, we just recently had articles here on 17.5% inflation as the

true rate --

I'll look to see if I can find it later --

[Nederland]

203. Sorry, I misunderstood you

I thought you were implying that the GOP had changed the way the BLS produced it's numbers. That would be inaccurate--the BLS has reported things the exact same way they always have since 1994. Sure, the monthly BLS report allows you to pick various numbers to quote from, and I'm sure politicians from both sides cherry pick the number that best suits their political ends.

[DJ13]

6. Sounds like the WH knows the deficit commission Obama formed isnt popular

with many progressives because he refused to exclude benefit reductions in Social Security when it was announced.

The time to talk like this was when he made the announcement, now that the commission is forming it seems like a hasty bit of CYA.

[defendandprotect]

8. Don't count on that stopping them . . .

and I also heard that in one of the bills -- there are plans to tax unemployment

benefits -- the first $2400 or $2600 of which is now exempt!!

Taxing Social Security and taxing unemployment is inane --

In fact, taxing any minimum wage is inane -- !!

Taxes used to be on the wealthy -- in the 1950's they were gradually moved onto the poor.

[sandnsea]

14. Oh my god, that is straight from right wing boards

Obama lifted the first $2400 from taxation this year, to help people. Unemployment benefits have been fully taxable since Reagan.

Obama gives you a break and you let these dumb motherfucking right wingers convince you that he's cheating you.

Good god.

[vaberella]

43. Always is. Many on the left use the same argument.

That's why I can't tell the difference most of the time. Although they claim to be different.

[liberation]

130. It is so awesome to be a centrist, ain't it?

Not having to bother to take a stand (too chickenshit to get "wet"), but feel entitled to point fingers left and right. Although "by coincidence" these "new and improved" centrist always end up making false analogies so that they can blame the "left."


Ain't that a bitch, 4 decades of hunting season having been declared on the American left... to the point that it is almost extinct. And we get to be blamed by the same people who want to have it all both ways: support the policies which brought us this wonderful clusterfuck, while at the same time wanting to blame the consequences of those policies on the very same people who opposed them (via the most intellectually dishonest approaches mind you).

I am sick and tired of people who are too chickenshit when it comes to take a stand, only finding their "courage" when it comes to blame the left.

[change_notfinetuning]

60. OMG, this is straight from the facts. Obama couldn't raise taxes on the

wealthy, a daily sound bite and talking point during the campaign, because of the recession. But he could still justify income tax on unemployment compensation after the first $2,400 dollars, with unemployment AND underemployment out of control. You are correct that it was Reagan's fault to begin with, 30 years ago. You cannot continue to blame this insanity on Reagan. Obama's policy, after the election, did a 180 from the campaign, allowing the wealthiest Americans to continue to not pay their fair share - not even one penny more. As for the unemployed, who were falling further behind while just trying to survive, his economic policy could only let them not pay their unfair share on the first $2,400.

He's a real man of the people, alright . . . the people of Wall Street.

[hollowdweller]

64. I hear a lot of the RW paradigm spewed out here

Any time unions, or defined pensions or SS are mentioned.

I'm not sure if it is just the people posting are so young that they have never heard the other side??

Or are the purveyours of plutocracy point of view just republican operatives trying to make sure they still control the narrative on these issues??

[bitchkitty]

106. There are both -

some are just stupid as shit, and others are just tools.

[DesertFlower]

23. i've been paying tax on 85% of my social

security since 1991 when i got social security disability.

[defendandprotect]

155. I think it's shocking that we would be taxing Social Security benefits . ..

or Unemployment benefits -- !!!

Inane!!

[Hamlette]

28. Unemployment and Social Security is not means tested which is why they are taxed

food stamps and other welfare benefits are not taxed because they go only to the poor.

You can be a billionaire and still get both unemployment and/or social security.

The reluctance to life the cap is that rich people say they will pay more in but get the same amount out. (Not exactly true but it is a bit uneven, as it well should be.)

What is shocking is how they have kept the ceiling so relatively low.

What is even more shocking is how 18 rich families got the GOP to get rid of the inheritance tax. (Calling it a death tax and the absurd claim that it was being taxed twice, once when it was made and then again when you die.) Don't get me started. The more you look into it, Reagan looks reasonable. (gag, I can't believe I typed that)

[defendandprotect]

157. "What is shocking is how they have kept the ceiling so relatively low" -- nice right wing trick--!!

Agree with you re the cap -- shocking!

Taxing Social Security benefits or Unemployments benefits is outrageous --

[Kweli4Real]

10. The Cap Should Have Been Removed

long ago. If you are earning,you should pay into the fund. But could you imagine the look on those G Sachs execs faces when they get FICA'ed on their $100,000,000 salary!!! Just one would found probably 250 S.S. accounts.

[LarryNM]

15. +1 n/t

[defendandprotect]

75. Agree . . . should have been removed long ago --

[cascadiance]

128. Remove the cap and lower the rate to NOT raises taxes on anyone up to $250k...

And in fact lower payroll tax on most people that are being taxed now. That would help provide a stimulus by itself to the economy to the RIGHT people! By lowering this rate, it would remove any way the right wing saying that Obama went back on his promises of not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250k, which is what Stephanopoulis tried to trap Obama into with debate questions in 2008. A donut hole is more complicated and not really fair that those making $100k have to pay the same amount of tax that those making $250k do.

Raising the cap is always the solution of the past. I'm just plain tired of alway being right at the threshold where I pay as much as Bill Gates does on payroll tax.

People keep trying to rationalize the regressive nature of the tax is that it is basically an investment by those who "use" it and that the wealthy shouldn't have to pay for what they don't "use'.

But Social Security does pay for more than just what WE put in for our OWN retirement funds... It also pays for those who are disabled, those who are widowed, etc. And I think it is important that it does and it is right that it does. But it is NOT right that so many of us making $100k or less have to pay substantially higher percentages of our income to provide this safety net for others than those that make more money than us like Bill Gates. That is simply NOT FAIR and should be corrected, even if it is only a flat rate percentage and not progressive like income tax is.

And when you consider that those making more than $100k than those making under that amount are apt to live longer without as much risky lifestyles, and greater access to higher quality health care, then they in fact "game" the system precentage-wise more than we do, even IF it were only just a strict insurance-like plan. So we wind up paying more for THEIR retirement than we provide for ourselves, even though we pay a bigger chunk percentage-wise of our salary for it than they do.

[Warren Stupidity]

185. Exactly. Eliminate the cap but make it revenue neutral by lowering the rates!

Introduce progressivity back into the fica tax while giving everyone below the cap a tax cut and don't add one more dime to the surplus that those bastards will just spend on war and billionaires.

[defendandprotect]

158. .... and the bonuses ... !!!! !!!

[mopinko]

241. so there should be no cap on benefits either, then, right?

that is why there is a cap on fica tax- because it is an insurance plan, and there is a max on what you can be paid. if the sight of millionaires getting 5 or 6 figure checks doesn't bother you, then go ahead and smash that cap.

[emsimon33]

12. I always felt bad when I was making a six-figure salary

That my contribution to SS maxed out in a few months while others who made significantly less than I never experienced a paycheck without SS being deducted.

I feel that there should be NO cap on SS earnings!

[LarryNM]

18. Agreed

[Scruffy1]

32. Even Milton Freidman agrees on this one.

Social Security is a regressive tax and about half of the income of the US does not pay it.

[tavalon]

34. That's the tough part about being a bleeding heart liberal

and making a good income.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Agreed!

And when I was first topping the cap, I was a very young man. That is, I was the 'youth' that are supposed to hate paying in. I found that cap to be unnecessary and unfair.

[DarcyPharaoh]

69. six-figure salary

I hope you are rich. If more rich people were altruistic, it would go a long way to solving our fiscal problems. They get selfish and greedy.

[emsimon33]

210. Not rich. I contributed most of my salary to charity

and liberal causes when I made that much money.

[dkf]

13. This is such a joke as we will spend it on the regular budget as soon as it comes in

More fake ious.

The way to save social security is to fix the regular budget. That is what is sucking all the ss surplus away. What would have made ss solvent is if we had a balanced budget along with a true ss fund with real assets. Then no one would doubt that ss obligations would be paid

[sandnsea]

16. Well he's trying to do that

and getting shit for it too. Did that occur to you before you typed that?

[dkf]

20. Isn't he projecting deficits for his entire term?

That ain't gonna cut it.

[sandnsea]

22. Deficit spending in a recession is necessary

We're not going to be completely out of this financial meltdown until at least 2012. On that basis alone it is impossible for him not to run a deficit.

Now you're a budget hawk? Really??

[dkf]

40. I understand the need for deficit spending in a recession yet I don't see

Much bang for what we have spent. I still feel we needed more emphasis on jobs early on and that would have spared us from some of this unemployment. Also the pay structure requirements on the renewable energy construction took 8 months to create leaving those stimulus funds sitting on the sidelines when we needed it most. Very poor execution if you ask me.

Much of my deficit gripes are with bush though. I do believe the deficit was ballooned on purpose to make entitlements unaffordable. Yet now we are the ones saying deficits don't matter. Yeah they don't matter til they consume so much of the budget that we can't fulfill our promises to our people.

[defendandprotect]

159. EXCEPT FOR WAR . . . which simply bankrupts our Treasury . . .!!!

Creating jobs -- yes --

Keeping states out of bankruptcy -- yes --

Keeping infrastructure going -- yes --

WAR -- NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!

Bailouts -- NO0OOOOOOOOOOO !!!




And I think it's much worse than is being acknowledged --

Byron Dorgan came close three weeks or so ago to using the word "depression"

and choked and went to "recession" --

Yesterday's headline was actually: "Obama says stimulus kept us from Depression" --

that last word was quickly changed!!

Yes -- I think we are close!!

[tavalon]

35. Government spending during a recession is very, very important

It's the only entity large enough to make a dent in the free fall. I have a lot of things I'm pissed at Obama for but he inherited this awful recession and he's been doing the right things for it, overall.

[defendandprotect]

160. Agree with general premise... but NOT wars and NOT bailouts ...

Keeping states from bankruptcy --

creating jobs --

keeping infrastructure going --

education, etal --


This has long been more than a "recession" --

If you saw Byron Dorgan talk about the economy three weeks or so ago he stumbled

before the word "Recession" -- obviously he was going to say "Depression."

And the actual headline yesterday was:

"Obama says stimulus kept us from a Depression" --

the last word was quickly changed!!!

Do you think the elites would want us to know how close we are or were?

Obama has to change the trade agreements --

and he has to re-regulate capitalism --

These crimes aren't in the past -- they're ready to be recreated again if we allow it!!

[jmowreader]

53. Most people would consider what's in the SS Trust Fund real assets if they knew what was in it

As another poster on this thread pointed out, the "worthless IOUs" in the Trust Fund are actually rock-solid US Treasury Bills--investments that are so good no portfolio should be without them.

If you had a portfolio that was 100 percent T-bills, your investment advisor would tell you something like "this is an okay portfolio, it will be there for you but you should diversify into something a little risky if you want to see some real income."

If the US government has a portfolio that's 100 percent T-bills, the right wing shills tell the people "it's full of worthless IOUs."

The way to save AMERICA is to fix the regular budget. That needs to be done, but if you want to "fix" the SS Trust Fund just get rid of the wage cap.

[customerserviceguy]

116. Two years ago

the same financial advisors would have told you how safe your money was with Bernie Madoff, too.

As long as the income and borrowings exceed the outflow, the Federal government is "solvent"-looking, and T-bills will be considered safe investments. Once somebody really starts having to pay back the obligations is where it gets tough.

We don't even have the political will to raise taxes on the rich to fund healthcare for our poorest, neediest younger citizens, how does anybody think we will somehow summon that will when it comes to funding the retirements of older people?

The President is quite bold to state the inconvenient truth here, but it's going to take more than just lifting the cap. Benefits are calculated on what's paid in, so Social Security benefits have to be capped as well, to make sure that the money doesn't just flow out the other side. That's where you're going to see political resistance.

[defendandprotect]

163. That's nonsense . . .

How safe is our money when it's turned over to "faith based" religious organizations?

How safe is it when it bails out corrupt capitalism?

How safe is it when it pays for illegal and immoral wars of aggression?

How safe for inane nuclear power plants?

And how safe when we continue to back corrupt capitalism without re-regulating it and

without preventing this from having again -- it has happened repeatedly!!

The surplus has nothing to do with current benefits -- it has more to do with right wing

greed and the need for a SLUSH fund --

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system and is solvent thru the year 2038 and longer --

And nor is there any need to "cap" benefits -- that's more right wing BS.

In fact, if inflationary considerations had been left as they were evidently the

benefit checks would be DOUBLE what they are now!!

The ceiling should be eliminated -- including for Wall St. Bonuses!!

[icee]

90. You got it. I'll stop right there for fear of board expulsion.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. SS is solvent. They are lying.

[customerserviceguy]

117. Only as long as outflows are less than inflows

That's about to grind to a halt in the next ten years or so. Maybe even sooner, if the recession lasts longer.

We always see in tough economic times how close SS is to the edge, Jimmy Carter had to raise SS taxes after the 73-75 recession, and the SS commission had to do so again (and decrease benefits) after the 80-82 recession. Since we're currently in the middle of the biggest recession since the Great Depression, and we have imminent boomer retirements, we've clearly getting closer to the edge than we've ever been.

[Warren Stupidity]

121. Wrong. That framing pretends that the 30 years of surpluses don't count.

It is the federal budget that is insolvent without surpluses from SS, not SS itself. SS is good for at least 20 years and probably much longer.

[customerserviceguy]

123. You're right, but only

if the Federal government pays off on those securities. We will do that either from increased taxes, decreased spending, or a combination of the two.

Or, we will not do it, except by printing money, and then we will have South America style inflation.

There's really no other way around all of that.

[Warren Stupidity]

126. The constitution requires the federal government to pay its obligations

Actually there are clear ways 'around that' all of which involve undoing the deliberately insane reagan-bush-bush tax changes that reduced taxes on the highest income brackets, reduced and then eliminated estate taxes that only affect the wealthy, and gave the rich a giant capital gains tax cut. Along with that insanity we have continued a ruinous military spending spree. So there most certainly is a way to pay our obligations to our retirees: raise taxes on the rich and cut back on the war profiteering boondoggle. There just is no representation in washington for the only policy that would benefit working people. Party of one.

[customerserviceguy]

137. Your example

is not "around that", it is merely the first thing I cited as a way to fix the problem. Since we don't even seem to have the political will to use the House version of HCR (which finances it from the rich), why do you think we will have any better prospects of doing so for paying SS benefits?

As for what the Constitution requires, it can be accomplished simply by printing (OK, they do it electronically these days) more money. That devalues the money currently in the economy, and massive inflation results from it. Yes, COLA's in Social Security will cause benefits to go up, but then we'll be on the inflationary spiral seen in both pre-Nazi Germany, and most recently, in Zimbabwe.

That doesn't sound like a good answer to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

186. So the answer is to increase the surplus?

No thanks.

[defendandprotect]

169. The $1 you had in your pocket when Bush became president is worth 50 cents!!!

If the info collected to judge inflation hadn't been changed by right wing

Social Security checks would be DOUBLE what they are now ---

So what else did the Chinese and others get for the money? -- They got our jobs!!

As they well understood in the Reagan administration -- and planned for it --

putting the nation in debt with wars or whatever creates pressure on social programs

and their inventual elimination!!

[defendandprotect]

166. Great point -- thank you !!!

:)


And, of course, the wars are bankrupting our Treasury!!!

Trade agreements sucking jobs out of the country!!!

Obama has to move his ass on all of this --

Re-regulate capitalism -- Glass-Steagall -- before they pull this BS all over again!!

[defendandprotect]

165. How about running out of funds to pay for Wars? Or infrastructure?

Or states going bankrupt --

Or the likelihood that corrupt capitalism will pull off more corruption and

need more bailouts!!

We are more likely at the EDGE with other issues like war and state bankruptcies!!

Obama has to move his ass and begin to overturn and/or amend the trade agreements

which are sucking out our jobs!!

And Obama has to begin to re-regulate capitalism -- Glass Steagall, etal --

Otherwise they'll pull the same crap again -- as soon as they can!

[defendandprotect]

164. Bush accountants were lying????? Sure!!

[Qutzupalotl]

17. Finally

someone in charge who gets it.

This idea has been percolating around for years, and now with someone smart enough to implement it ... in conditions that require it ... maybe we'll see it happen.

[JDPriestly]

19. That makes sense. It's about the only thing that does if they really think

that there is a problem. That is because if you try to reduce the benefits for Social Security recipients or for Medicare, you simply transfer most of those costs to another part of the budget. There is no alternative to supporting the elderly, the disabled, orphans and others for whom Social Security is most often an income of last resource.

Social Security recipients pay taxes on income that exceeds a certain amount which is pretty low. So, it isn't as though wealthy people take Social Security and just have a huge party with it. A portion of it becomes taxable income if they have a lot of other income.

[ChicagoSuz219]

24. I've been saying take the cap off FICA for years...

...I guess somebody, somewhere, finally heard me... YAY!

[defendandprotect]

167. Everyone has been saying that for decades --- and will Obama ignore it, as well???

Let's see what actually happens!!

[diane in sf]

25. take the cap off totally--doesn't matter how much you have, you'll still collect

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. And what have DUers been saying for YEARS?

Welcome to the real world, President Obama.

[DFW]

27. The cap should be twice or three time as high at least

$109,000 may seem a lot to those earning a third of that, but there are enough people earning that much or way more
that it would make sense to raise the cap substantially. It would affect me directly, but it would be more than worth
it to know that my children wouldn't have to worry, assuming they choose to remain in the United States (they are dual
citizens, so that's not a given).

[tavalon]

36. I'm guessing the reason we can't go for no cap is that the rich

wouldn't allow it, right? If we cap it at 250,000, those people don't have enough clout to do anything about it.

[DFW]

48. We could cap it at $350,000 easily enough, although employers might scream louder than employees

Don't forget that the Social Security Tax, currently at 6.2%, must be matched by the employer, so the employer
gets hit for an extra 6.2% as well, not just taxpayer. The federal Government already gets 12.4% of the amount
of an employee's wages (up to any cap) in Social Security taxes alone, paid equally by employer and employee.
Plus: the Medicare Tax comes on top of that, and there is no cap at all for the Medicare Tax--it gets paid no
matter how high the employee's taxable earnings, and the employer has to match that as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Rather than raising the cap, how about a lower rate above the present cap, but with no limit?

ie at the moment, the social security tax is:
6.2% on earnings up to $106,800
0% on earnings over that

Rather than changing the "$106,800", how about changing the "0%" to something like 2%? That would mean those earning just over $106,800 would pay a little more, while those earning a lot more would pay a larger share than they would with just a raise of the cap.

The UK made this change a few years ago, and I think it works OK.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

59. Good idea

And thanks for clarifying the current cap -it is the 1st $106,800 not $109,000

[tavalon]

33. Finally!

Something that I really care about that he is suggesting the right solution to!!!! Yes, this is good, damn good. Reconcile that sucker and leave the Party of No in the dust!! Do this for the grandparents who deserve a safe safety net.

If he does gets them to do this, I will forgive and forget (well, not forget, that isn't appropriate) a hell of a lot of bad choices he made in 2009.

[whatsthebuzz]

37. I'm for it

I'm all for some sort of fix for Social Security. This sounds like it may work.

[Vinca]

42. Talk is cheap. Do it.

[DireStrike]

44. Yes we can!

Easy Peasy.

[penndragon69]

45. Keep taxing income to at least $5 Million.

That will fill the coffers up fairly quickly.
Then STOP paying SS/medicare benefits to anyone who makes more than $150K
a year and you would solve this problem completely.

[Ed76638]

46. Come on Hussein. Stop being timid.

LIFT THAT SHIT!!!!!!!

[TheCowsCameHome]

49. *Thud* Pass me the smelling salts.

At last, someone gets it right.

What the heck took so long?

Of course the usual suspects on the right will run around yelling TAX INCREASE, TAX INCREASE! but to hell with them.

Just do it.

[Toots]

50. Considering that Republican leader Steele says a million dollars is not a lot of money

The cap needs to be at the very least one million dollars.

[RedRoses323]

72. True

:rofl: :rofl:

[Mari333]

52. Two stinking reeking occupations in countries costing 52,000 a minute

over 50 % of the US budget for defense

start cutting THAT out Obama.

[defendandprotect]

170. Bankrupting our Treasury . . and the profits go to those who love to profit from war-MIC . . .

[Kingofalldems]

54. Kick and rec

Big time. This is change we can believe in.

[change_notfinetuning]

55. Yes, it would be simple. But, so far, all he's done is talk about it. He said he

would do this a gazillion times during the campaign. And, ooh, now he's saying it again. Am I supposed to get the Chris Matthews tingle every time he talks about doing the right thing? Let's see something more than talk, for a change.

There were several good ideas suggested in earlier posts. The "donut hole" (post #3) sounded interesting. The British approach (post #31) is something to consider. Maybe even capping the employer share at the current amount, but not limiting the employee's share at all. One way or another, we can and should make the top 5% pay their fair share, as Barack Obama has talked about, and talked about, and talked about, and talked about, and talked about repeatedly, practically daily, during the campaign. Remember that he won 53% of the votes of the people in this income bracket. The majority of the people that this would affect knew he wanted to do this and voted for him anyway.

It's time for action. Does President Obama need an invitation, or what?

[tango-tee]

113. He has that talking bit down to a fine art, doesn't he?

Love your post!

[groundloop]

56. There's no cap for other taxes, why should there be a cap for SS?

I've been in favor of lifting that cap for years. I actually managed to earn more than the capped amount for a couple of years, and yes, it was cool to stop paying SS tax in September. I guess in a way I felt a little bit superior to those who still had to pay it. But when you think about it, why should the rich pay a much smaller tax (in terms of percent of their income) than those earninng less? That cap should be gone, end of story.

[SlingBlade]

57. " It also would be unpopular with some ", Yes, For those who ...

Did NOT Vote for you Mr. President. (And never will )

Fire Rham and listen to people like Dean and Bernie for a change.

For a Real Change that we who voted for you CAN believe in.

[FailureToCommunicate]

78. +1

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SlingBlade]

83. Bi-Partisanship ! Just another word for Surrender....

Where oh where is that bright shinning star and all of that hope ?
Where is that Change you can believe in ?

Gone down the drain like yesterdays half bottle of stale beer

[Ken Burch]

61. That would be fine.

What we need to do, though, is to make absolutely sure that Pete Peterson and his mob don't get to have a say in this.

[kestrel91316]

62. People who make over $109k will just have to suck it up and pay the same

percentage as the Little People. Go ahead and whine, crybabies. Maybe going back to your favorite vacation spot in Bali or wherever will help you get over it.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. I support lifting that cap, dougnut hole or no

Raise it, it should have been raised years ago. The some it will be unpopular with are just bad citizens who will always grouse about contributing their fair share. Most who will pay it will support paying it.

[cascadiance]

206. Removing the cap and lowering rates would make a doughnut hole unnecessary and be fairer too!

The doughnut hole proposition was made most likely to help Obama claim that he's not raising taxes on anyone up to $250k.

But adding a doughnut hole will just complicate the tax structure that much more, and will unfairly penalize those who make $100k who wind up paying the same tax as those making $250k. Why put in something that arguably just preserves inequity that has no long term benefit, and just makes the system more complicated unnecessarily.

If Obama wants to keep his promise of not raising taxes on folks between the current threshold and $250k, then just lower the percentage of payroll tax so that those making $250k would pay in real dollars the same amount they pay now. Problem solved. More fair, and provides a stimulus tax cut (or perhaps what many could think of as a raise in salary without asking for business to give actual pay raises), to those under $250k.

People's salaries are sized with taxes in mind as well as what is perceived they need to accept a job with a company for that kind of job. By having this tax cut, more of that money between taxes and sslary goes back to the employee. And I don't believe most employers will try to "take advantage" of this tax cut (which also helps their "matching amount" which would also be lowered as an "tax cut" incentive to them too to hire more people at these levels and pay less to overpaid executives) by lowering people's salaries. That wouldn't be good PR and would just trigger even more sentiment of people wanting to switch jobs than they have now.

[rateyes]

68. They should lift it period. No cap.

And, benefits should be capped at a certain point...means testing.

[IndianaGreen]

73. A rare good idea from the Obama White House

but is the President going to use reconciliation or is he going to persist in his delusional pursuit of 60 votes?

[DarcyPharaoh]

76. Raise the social security cap and abolish payroll tax

Getting rid of payroll tax would result in more vibrant capitalism. "Earned income" is an oxymoron for a scheme conservatives devised to go after the only thing of monetary value that poor people have: their wages. Government should only tax income: interest income, capital gains, dividends, rental income, estate income. Salary is not really income. It is more like an exchange: compensation for labor or services. Government should only tax that income which is received when you did nothing to earn it. Social Security solvency can be achieved by raising the cap. We should then lower the Social Security retirement age in order to invigorate the economy and open up the job market to younger people. If we learned anything from the Bush/Cheney years, it's that trickle-down economics does not work. Social Security solutions should benefit the middle-class. Rich people don't stimulate the economy. The greed factor kicks in, and they go nuts trying to increase their wealth, investing with people like Bernie Madoff. Middle-class people stimulate the "real" economy because they are not even allowed to invest with crooks like Madoff.

[DailyGrind51]

77. If only we could get rid of Republican obstructionists and "ConservaDems"?

[FailureToCommunicate]

80. Why was it set at $109,000 ?

[defendandprotect]

82. Long ago, ordinary citizens used to reach the maximum

amount collected on their salaries in October or so --

For higher paid employees, some reached the maximums much earlier.

As FICA was increased -- mainly to increase the SURPLUS -- the burden of those

increases fell mainly on the poor and middle class because the cap was even lower --

We should eliminate the cap or substantially raise it --

[Warren Stupidity]

87. The cap has been cola'd since the early 80's

along with the rest of SS. It is adjusted upwards every year. So I don't quite understand your statement that "the burden of those
increases fell mainly on the poor and middle class because the cap was even lower " - the cap has been more or less constant in inflation adjusted dollars.

[Trillo]

100. Cola: I believe that economist John Williams said

in the early 2000s that if the cost of living index had been calculated the way it was in the 1970s, social security payments would at the time of the writing be 70% higher.

His point seemed to be that COLAs have been marginalized, over the years increasingly emphasizing downward moves (in the index) and minimizing upward moves, so that "inflation adjusted" has become an increasingly irrelevant term where over time the burden increasingly falls on the poor.

It probably is obvious that when you only withhold from the poor and lower middle class (any incomes below the cap), but not take any more from those with additional incomes over the threshold, that also describes a classic regressive tax structure.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.<5> The FICA tax is considered a regressive tax on income (with no standard deduction or personal exemption deduction) and is imposed (for the year 2009) only on the first $106,800 of gross wages. The tax is not imposed on investment income (such as interest and dividends).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax

[Warren Stupidity]

114. Well that is a related but different point.

Yes I agree completely that washington has played shennanigans with the way COLA and inflation in general is calculated for very self serving reasons.

My minor disagreement was the statement I quoted. There was no supporting statement about the bogosity of inflation calculations. Ignoring that, the cap has been more or less static for 25 years. By the way, there has always been a cap. The theory is and was that as payouts are capped so should contributions, that this was a pension system and not a welfare program. As I noted elsewhere, as long as the effect is revenue neutral I am fine with eliminating the cap. It needs to be done along with lowering the rates. Otherwise all we are doing is generating even larger surpluses that Washington has no intention of paying back and that will be used instead to make war profiteers and wall street billionaires even richer.

[Trillo]

145. Perhaps I didn't phrase it well enough.

Since the index no longer tracks real inflation, but some synthetic, lower amount, over time any increase in the cap that was based upon COLA derived inflation would also set a lower cap than it would if the inflation figures were calculated the way they were through the 1960s and 70s. The latter would presumably have set a higher cap each and every year that any increase occurred, so these would build upon each other cumulatively, once the adjustment in the cap was created, and thus, the current cap would be higher than today's actual cap.

When I wrote the burden is increasingly on the poor, I didn't only mean from a contribution standpoint, but also from the elderly and poor Social Security recipients. I don't know how many news articles I've read over the years, perhaps starting as early as the 90s, that a number of poorer recipients have to choose between food and rent, and even medicine. The latter particularly in the phrasing of taking half a prescribed pill instead of the full dose, simply for bill-paying or budget-balancing reasons. In fact, I've known several elderly folks, now deceased, in just such a situation, so those articles didn't seem to be describing some fantastic and non-existent effect.

So here we are, getting elderly, having earlier worked where ever we could, the employers didn't pay much, but many did act to effectively trickle up some labor-derived profits to uber-wealthy investors, so it's not unreasonable to ask that any poorer workers who later in their lives are still poor, elderly Social Security recipients, that these folks should be able to pay their meager bills and have a little disposable left over for the bingo game or an occasional meal out, or whatever. To ask those who profited so handsomely to pay a little more to support prior decades' workers' retirements, seems entirely reasonable, given the extreme wage and wealth imbalance that exists.

[defendandprotect]

171. Thank you -- I heard Social Security checks would be DOUBLED!!!

But I'll go with you -- !!!

His point seemed to be that COLAs have been marginalized, over the years increasingly emphasizing downward moves (in the index) and minimizing upward moves, so that "inflation adjusted" has become an increasingly irrelevant term where over time the burden increasingly falls on the poor.

Watched them working on some of this over the years on C-span . .

Shocking . . .

It probably is obvious that when you only withhold from the poor and lower middle class (any incomes below the cap), but not take any more from those with additional incomes over the threshold, that also describes a classic regressive tax structure.


The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.<5> The FICA tax is considered a regressive tax on income (with no standard deduction or personal exemption deduction) and is imposed (for the year 2009) only on the first $106,800 of gross wages. The tax is not imposed on investment income (such as interest and dividends).

And let's get interest above $10,000 in there and bonuses -- and dividends!!

:)

Great post -- !!

[Trillo]

192. Link to William's article,

there's a bit more information in the report about how COLA has been played with. The article name is http://www.shadowstats.com/pdf/779-626538446.pdf">Shadowing Reality (PDF).

It strikes me that so long as it appears like a regressive tax, it probably is regressive in effect, so I guess I'm in agreement with you. No cap. With the existence of any cap, no matter where on the income scale it is placed, overall it remains regressive.

[defendandprotect]

196. It was really so sickening watching them do this . . .

The effort and detail put into it by those like Sen. Orrin Hatch!!

And many others --

Here they were talking about the poor -- people on Social Security who had recently

been rescued by COLA's from eating cat food and they were striking out at any miniscule

increase that might be given over to them due to inflation!!!

"Oh, women are better shoppers than that -- the price of that went up -- doesn't matter --

the wife will find another product that is cheaper to fill in. Actually, she'll probably

end up saving money!"


Infuriating!!

I've only just gotten back to C-span though much less worthy of watching since the

Gingrich revolution which really knocked C-span out. Plus the Gulf Wars!!

I've missed about 2 years of C-span 2 -- Comcast moved it to a higher tier to show it in

Hi-Definition . . . !!!

Thanks for the link -- didn't have time to read right now but "faved" it --



:)

[yurbud]

227. think how low it could be if it applied to investment income too!

[defendandprotect]

142. And you think $100,000 incorporates the WEALTHY . . . ???!!!

It comes nowhere near reflecting anything more than the middle class or upper middle class --

Consider simply the obscene bonuses that have been paid by insurance companies and Wall Street!

Even if a couple made $75,000 or $80,000 right now, it certainly wouldn't be "wealth" considering

the costs of raising children and educating them -- and the costs of housing.

The cap should be substantially lifted -- $500,000 or more --

OR completely eliminated. I'd favor complete elimination.

Like our income taxes, the burden of taxation has been moved onto the shoulders of the poor

and the middle class.

And, again, all of the rates for statistics and statistical considerations have been changed

by the GOP to be less beneficial and less generous to the poor and middle class. I would suspect,

therefore, that whatever the COLA increases, they are INSUFFICIENT.

In fact, as I understand it, if we truly reflected INFLATION in Social Security checks,

they would have to double!

[Warren Stupidity]

182. No I certainly don't think 100,000 income is wealthy

although plenty here do. I think it is approximately equal to 30,000 income in the early 80s. It is not wealthy at all (and wealth should be measured by assets not income.) What I think is this is the kleptocracy once again offering to start another intra-peasant war by raising taxes on all of us again in order to continue to float their war profiteering wall street billionaire bloat with our pension fund surpluses. I've made that position quite clear I think in this thread and every time this topic comes up on DU. Not one more dime of SS taxes until income capital gains and estate taxes are rolled back to at least where they were in 98, and not one more dime of SS tax until the military bloat is given the axe, and certainly not one more dime of any sort of payroll tax until we get universal single payer health insurance for everyone for our hard earned money.

[defendandprotect]

198. I'm all in favor of making demands .. .but we have no leverage, it seems . . .

and what tells me that is the fact that we're being IGNORED!!

We need a Plan B -- !!

[jgraz]

84. I really wish Obama would think outside the box

• Lower FICA to pre-Reagan levels
• Raise taxes on the rich to pre-Reagan levels
• Stop raiding the surplus to finance wars
• Cut defense spending


Not only simple, but actually fair and responsible.

[defendandprotect]

172. ...and amend or repeal the Trade Agreements taking our jobs . . .!!!

:)

[jgraz]

193. Shit, how did I forget that one?!?!

DEY TUK ARE JEEEEEEEERBS!

[CrankyJerseyBoy]

85. To the OP re: increase tax cap

To the OP....

If Obama raises the cap on the tax for SocSec, in essence, wouldn't he be breaking his campaign promise on "no tax increase" for those making under $250K?

Dems and Republicans alike screwed up SocSec, IMO. We just can't trust the government to "hold" all that cash!

[Warren Stupidity]

91. What exactly is 'screwed up'?

The whole premise is false. SS is running a huge surplus. SS will continue to run a surplus for at least 20 years. At that time SS should be able to fund itself from ALL OF THE T-BILLS LOANED TO THE US GOVERNMENT since the 'reform' of the early 80's for at least the entire duration of the baby boom bulge, at which point it will return to surplus revenue status. That is the problem: they don't want to have to pay those loans back, so they intend to raise SS taxes AGAIN to keep the surplus feeding the war profiteers and wall street billionaires.

We are forever fighting the wrong issues because we accept their bullshit premises rather than challenging them.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. I am against any change that increases the surplus used to fund war and billionaires.

If the cap is eliminated then that should be done with a concurrent lowering of rates that makes the change revenue neutral. There is no SS funding crisis. The crisis is a federal budget crisis involving its dependency on SS surpluses. For some reason they keep forgetting to mention that fact.

[Spoonman]

89. This will have disastrous effects!! (read it all before flipping out)

First off, the problem is not enough money going into the system.

The problem is that EVERY dick head in office since the program was created has raided the coffers to pay for wars, pet projects and a whole slew of worthless crap!
Al Gore had it right, create a "lock box"!

Everything I can find on this indicates that it will effect roughly 10.5 million people.
It will generate a lot of revenue, but will also result in the largest tax increase in the history of the United States.

The hardest hit will be in 9 States, 7 of which are BLUE States and 5 battleground States critical to presidential elections. Four of those battleground Sates were narrow margin victories in 2008.

WTF Mr. President? You promise you would not raise taxes except those making over 250K!

Mark my words; this will be the battle cry come 2012!!!!!!!!!

The right will use this relentlessly, and it will be EXTREMELY effective!

Remember “read my lips”?

Goodbye to a second term, we will be cutting our own throats with this one.

We need at MINIMAL one more term to fix all the shit that has been fucked up over the past 8 years, and therefor this is not a battle worth fighting!

[ProSense]

99. "WTF Mr. President? You promise you would not raise taxes except those making over 250K!" Except

he's talking about incomes of $250,000 and up

[yodoobo]

134. It will only affect the wealthy

No one really don't wants to hear wining from fat cats making $109k a year.

[Spoonman]

209. Fat cats?

Let's just take a look at that.
A husband and wife with one child in high school and one child is in college, have a combined income of $135K
The husband is a pipeline operator for a refinery and works a 6 weeks on 1 week off schedule, rotating between (days and nights); he works a 12 hour shift seven days a week during those 6 weeks on.
He has been with the company 15 years, and makes $83K a year.
The wife is a school teacher (18 years) and makes $52K a year.
They live in a 3 bedroom 1,475 sq foot home.
One drives a 1999 Ford F-150, the other drives a 2004 Toyota Camry.
They live very modestly, and try to max out their retirement contributions every year.
If the cap is raised, they will pay an additional $1,612 or basically the cost of one semester’s tuition for their son that is in college.
If they (Obama) raise the cap, they will NEVER vote for a DEMOCRAT again!
This is what they both swore to me. I have been best friends with the husband for 45 years, I was the best man at their wedding, and know that they are the average typical American family.
They have worked their asses off to get to where they are in life.
Wealthy?, NO! Fat cats? NO!
You have no clue who you are referring to with that statement!

[yodoobo]

212. your making $135k a year.

That's more than 95% of most Americans and more than 99% of the worlds population. Pat yourself on the back. You are most definitely upperclass by any definition.

You can most definitely afford an extra $1,612 to help those less fortunate than yourself.

I think you should be thankful that this country enables you to live your lifestyle. A lifestyle carved and made possibly out by Democrats who came before you.

And honestly. If an extra 1% of your income would make you not vote for Obama or the Democratic party again...then you were never really onboard with what we are about anyway.

[Spoonman]

213. Are you illiterate?

Or did you not read anything I wrote?
I was speaking about my best friend, and you shoot off your mouth with a personal attack.
THEY earn that money by working their asses off! My buddy averages over 70 hours a week at work!
An extra $1,612????? WTF he already puts in $13,243, and will NEVER get all that back in benefits.
Are they doing well? YES Are they Better off than many others? YES Are they rich? HELL NO
You don’t seem to understand that “to help those less fortunate than yourself” is called CHARITY, and charity is something you do voluntarily.
Your blatant class envy indoctrination is the biggest stigma the Democratic Party has to overcome.
It is that exact attitude that will cause us to lose in 2012, and until we change that, or separate ourselves from the likes of you we will never see a majority again!


PS - your lifestyle in this country was made possible by VETERANS LIKE ME, NOT A FUCKING PARTY OR POLITICIAN!

[yodoobo]

215. oh the self rightetous

Where did I accuse folks of not working hard? Frankly I would hope they work hard for such a huge income.

And since when is it an attack to point out that your "best friend" makes a very nice income???

I support removing the cap and asking high income folks pay their fair share. Your best friend had his taxes slashed by the Bush administration to the determent of people like me. I will not shed a tear if he has to give a little back.

[Spoonman]

230. Put aside your rage for two seconds and think

Where did I accuse folks of not working hard? Frankly I would hope they work hard for such a huge income.

They do work extremely hard for it. With this announcement they also feel, like many Americans, that their hard work is in vain. No matter how hard they try to get ahead, they keep getting shit on for their efforts.
People like yourself don’t take into account the sacrifices they make; you simply paste a label on them (wealthy) because they make more money than you.
Would you be willing to work an 80 hour week on the rotation I described for that kind of money? ($83K per year)
Most people so NO.

And since when is it an attack to point out that your "best friend" makes a very nice income???

Spare me the intellectual dishonesty; you know damn well you were inferring that I was talking about myself.

I support removing the cap and asking high income folks pay their fair share.

What is fair? Your definition or theirs?
Is your definition biased by jealousy?
I have a feeling you don’t make near what he does, and somehow feel it’s “wrong” for anyone to make more than yourself.
Would you think differently if you were in their situation?
The BIGGEST issue is not “fair share”, it’s the fact that EVERY asshole in DC spent the money on shit that it wasn’t intended for! They robbed the SS coffers, pissed it away, and now want more.
I voted for Obama because I believed he would put an end to the typical DC shit, and so far he has continued the status quo.

Social Security is the absolute perfect example of the lies and deception perpetrated by politician’s et al.

Your best friend had his taxes slashed by the Bush administration to the determent of people like me. I will not shed a tear if he has to give a little back.

Shed a tear at the real numbers. My friend paid almost $40K in taxes last year.
He paid over half of what I make in a year! That’s a pretty “fair” share if you ask me!

At a combined income of $54K (2001) increased to $62K (2009) a year since the bush tax cuts were implemented, my wife and I have paid roughly $10,000 less in taxes from those cuts, so they benefited me greatly! (I’m damn sure not rich)

What is “wealthy” by your definition?
Remember to factor in cost of living for the area a person lives in, and you will find it differs greatly.
When the President set the bar at $250K, I agreed whole heartedly, as that amount would definitely be considered wealthy regardless of where you live.
Under the tax cuts imposed by the President Obama, my friend would have had a tax cut of roughly $1800. If the cap on SS is removed, he gets less than a $200 tax cut.
He has a valid point, He “didn’t vote for Obama to get fucked in the end”, and “will not for him again if he raises my taxes”.

This is the point I’m trying to make, and you just don’t seem to get it.
It’s not about your opinion of “fair share”, “right” or “wrong”, it’s about a promise he made when he was running for office.
It’s about political strategy and long term change.
Those of you filled with so much hatred and jealousy simply do not understand the damage that this will do to many INDEPENDENT voters. The independent voters are the key to 2012, and don’t be ignorant and think they are not.

If Obama “raises” taxes on ANYONE making less than $250K, he will LOSE in 2012!

[on point]

94. Raise the cap, not the age nor reduce benefits

I for one would generally end up paying more if the cap were raised, and I am all for it! I would much rather have my ssi taxes raised, than the retirement age. In fact I want it rolled back to 65.

I say raise the level to at least 200K

[hulka38]

97. Will the Democrats please tie in the cost of the Iraq War (more than a trillion $)

into having to cut SS and Medicare. Can we begin starving the beast now?

[SoapBox]

101. But, But, BUT....that is the stuff that is killing small business.

I'm am ALL in favor of sharing help...and I want to help...BUT,

we own 2 small businesses. We are DESPARATELY struggling to stay afloat...as we
were warned many years ago, don't fall into the trap of taking care of everyone
else before ourselves. WELL we are suckers and pay our employees before ourselves.
Our employees make VERY good wages (average $18-20/hour).

Part of our obligation as business is that we must MATCH the SS and Medicare that
is drawn out of an employee check. That is a LOT of money for us (and note, that is
NOT reflected on the pay stuff.)

We know that SS and Medicare both need help (actually, we would like to see the SS
withholding rate reduced and the Medicare rate increased) BUT...it would just
finish us off.

Take a look at your paycheck...and then keep in mind (or ask your employer) about
the SS and Medicare match.

...if they want to raise it for the employee...fine...but not the employer.

[DJ13]

103. Why would an increase in the cap effect a small business?

The only way it would impact you is if you're paying your employees (or yourself) more than the current $109,000 salary its presently capped at.

[SoapBox]

140. Because we match what is taken out of the employees checks...

I will start by saying, that currently NONE of our employees even get near the present cap (80K something? And after that, employees and employers no longer have deductions for SS and Medicare).

BUT, those businesses (and now that I think about it, businesses that are paying employees over 100K are not really small business!) would have to continue to match what was taken out for the employees. Which means even more money comes from the employer (yes, and the employee too.) Bottom line for employee net pay and all related taxes...it ALL comes from the employers pocket (that ought to make some folks mad.) It was only after doing payroll that I realized why most smart (!?) employers really look hard at the total cost of adding an employee and the related extra sales that they need to generate to cover them.

After thinking about this...what we, as the employer/business owner need, is to stop or greatly reduce what WE contribute.

Overall, we seem to be under attack from every vendor, our landlords, utilities, suppliers, etc. with increases in price...THAT all combined together with a reduction in customers...is makeing it a VERY tough environment.

[defendandprotect]

173. This would only effect large/wealthy corporations ...

As I understood it, when Social Security first began employees paid 2/3rd of FICA

and employees 1/3rd -- and that was changed sometime in Carter administration.

Others disagree -- but it's what I've read on it.

It might also have an interesting effect on lowering elitist salaries???

And what about people who don't have their own businesses. . .??

Are they not under attack from credit card companies, landlords, utilities, suppliers, etal?

And increases in prices?

Keep in mind that what Obama actually said yesterday was that --

"Obama: stimulus kept us from a Depression"

That last word was very quickly changed -- !!

FICA is a regressive tax -- it has always mainly fallen on the poor and middle class.

Time to change that!!

[CONN]

110. Yes, So do it!

[RoadRage]

120. So does that mean the benifit payout is higher to those who earn over $109,000 as well?

I have no problem with paying more SS tax, but I'd like my payout to be higher as well. This looks like i'm going to be paying more into SS, but no more benefit at the end.

I'm sure most here don't care.. but I do. There has always been a cap on how much you paid into SS, but also a cap on what the end payout would be. Is that going to change if this plan goes through?

[Warren Stupidity]

127. No of course not. We are being sold another giant SS tax hike

in order to prop up surpluses that the kleptocracy never intends to repay. The solutions are always 'you pay more you get less'. There is never a thought toward, for example, ending the war department bloat and raising income and capital gains taxes on the rich. No the solution is always 'raid the SS surplus and pretend there is a crisis to justify it'.

[VPStoltz]

177. Your return is based on how much you pay in.

So, yes, the deduction on higher incomes will be higher and the return to those payers will be higher when the time comes to tap into it.

[Warren Stupidity]

184. Nope - it is capped and nobody is offering to uncap it.

[winyanstaz]

125. How about just lifting the tax on those making over $250,000

and making them pay their fair share for a change?
Also ending the wars would free up the money for all kinds of fixes of our economy.

[BrklynLiberal]

129. How about totally removing the cap?

[yodoobo]

132. I don't have a problem with taxes on the wealthy

and certainly $109k constitutes wealthy for the vast majority of the US.

[yodoobo]

135. Or tax it on all income, including investment income.

Why should those who live on interests and speculation be entitled to avoid fica anyway?

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

221. A 12-13% FICA tax on top of existing capital taxes...

...would completely remove all incentive to invest. It wouldn't be worth the risk. There is a good reason that even socialist countries don't tax capital much, frequently less than the US. Without capital investment, the economy goes down the crapper and then tax revenues really start to dive. Since most capital investment ends up going to income, it is better to pick it up on that side.

[w4rma]

136. Very good. (nt)

[abelenkpe]

143. Help?

How exactly does social security work? My grandmother worked for the department of agriculture pretty much her entire life. I remember that her social security was all she had to live on once she retired. She was born in 1910, had gone through the depression and raised three kids on her own so she didn't have substantial savings or anything like that. (Man she loved FDR.) Anyway for her social security was a necessity.

But I know other relatives that have pensions or still work part time and collect social security. They make more a month than my husband and I working full time raising two kids. Can people collect social security when they are still working and not completely retired? Does it just start up when one reached a certain age? Not that I would begrudge them access to what they paid in.

[Jimbo S]

161. I believe if you have earned income over $32K or something

then part of your SSI is subject to tax. But yes, you can work and collect at the same time.

[Jimbo S]

162. I'm against raising the cap.

A cap exists on benefits received, so I say it's fair to cap the income that's taxed. Just the principle of the thing. I think people should responsible for their own retirement, with SSI acting as a safety net so no one is left destitude.

[defendandprotect]

175. If people were responsible for their own "retirement" we'd have more destitute!!!

If the method for calculating inflation hadn't been changed by right wing,

estimates are that the benefit checks would be 50% to 70% higher than they are!!

FICA is a regressive tax which is an undue burden on the poor and middle class and

always has been!

Time to change that!

Remember Enron?

[Jimbo S]

211. I don't find it regressive

You get back what in proportion what you put in.

I remember Enron. It's too bad people were defrauded out of their money. That's why I keep my money spread around instead of one spot.

[defendandprotect]

217. It's not about what you "get back" . .. it's about who's paying into it . . .

and that is mainly those who have made poor and middle class salaries -- !!

And re this . . .

I remember Enron. It's too bad people were defrauded out of their money. That's why I keep my money spread around instead of one spot.


Remember also there is enough corrupt capitalism around to destroy anyone!!

[mistertrickster]

174. The way Soc Security works is the more you pay in the more you get back.

So if you had no cap, you'd have Bill Gates drawing like 10 million dollars a year.

Not a good plan in my humble opinion.

[amandabeech]

214. You don't have to give Gates so much if you tax him.

Just tax him. He's sent huge numbers of decent jobs out of the country and thus deprived the social security administration of lots of money that had been assumed would go into the system.

Think of those extra taxes as damages paid for wrongdoing, or better yet, as a cost of doing business the way he chooses to do it.

I think that it is a fair and just plan.

Just as fair as a progressive tax, by the way.

[cascadiance]

205. Also consider that medicare is funded through payroll tax as well...

Which is the same regressive mechanism that keeps its funding limited in scope. If we at some point want to make it "Medicare for all", especially if we want to do this through budget reconciliation if we don't have the votes to pass such in the Senate, removing the cap on payroll tax will not only help social security, but help provide funding for an expanded Medicare program, without a lot of investment and logistics needing to make newer taxing mechanisms, etc.

[Kingofalldems]

207. Kick this for Mr. CPAC

:shrug: <-------

[Mike K]

218. How about a means test?

Social Security is an insurance policy, not an investment. It exists to supplement those seniors who find themselves either destitute or having barely enough money to scrape by with bare essentials. So those who are fortunate enough to end up with more than enough money to lead a very comfortable life have no need for a monthly supplement. In simple terms it would be the same as any other insurance policy; you pay the monthly premium and if you qualify for a supplement you get it, otherwise you don't.

I understand there are hundreds of thousands of seniors collecting Social Security who have absolutely no need for it and a lot more who could get by nicely with a proportionately reduced benefit -- including me and my brother.

[Jimbo S]

224. Would the "savers" be punished under this plan?

Say someone was responsible with their money, lived a frugal lifestyle, saved accordingly and in the end reaped the rewards of their actions - why should they have their benefits denied while those folks who spent every dollar on their big homes, vehicles and toys get their benefits?

[bamacrat]

222. I say eliminate the cap. But raising it to 1M should be acceptable.

And it wouldn't be raising taxes it would be requiring more people to pay their fair share. It is wrong there is a cap in the first place.

[ericinne]

223. I have a different thought on what to do.

I say leave the current cap. Let those above it, till about the 500k income level (maybe even the $1million mark)only have to pay to the current $109,000. Then any income AFTER $1million would be subject to the adjustment. That way it wouldn't be the fairly wealthy or small business groups who get the burden, just the uber rich.

[yurbud]

225. If they did away with the cap, couldn't the LOWER the rate for everyone?

The rationale for the cap has always been that the wealthy will never need it, but the bust of the last couple of bubbles sending some CEO's and high rollers all the way to the bottom of the food chain should dispell that myth.

[yurbud]

226. Did someone put some progressive vitamins in his wheaties? If so, thanks!

[Uncle Joe]

229. I believe that would be the best solution, kicked too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, cory.

[Doctor_J]

231. Since it's never missed a payment in 75 years, why

does it need to be fixed?

[rocktivity]

233. At least he hasn't backed down on that yet

Remember when he bested Hillary on that during the Dem debates?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=321100&mesg_id=321108

Uh oh...maybe the reason why he hasn't backed down yet is because he's already agreed to save social security in exchange for giving up on health care!

P.S. Lifting that cap would mean that EVERYBODY would pay a lower rate.


rocktivity

[shanti]

237. lift the damn cap already

that's the only tweak SS needs!

[Hardrada]

239. But it would make the repugs mad to have to even think about it!

[dysfunctional press]

238. "It also would be unpopular with some."

but WILDLY popular with MOST.

if they choose to cut benefits or raise the eligibility age instead of lifting the cap- i HOPE that it's enough to foment an outright revolution.

i am sick to death of the plutocratic bullshit that our country runs on.

[heli]

242. Getting out of Afghanistan would be simpler

[lovuian]

244. Do you feel like we are being Set Up!!!

First we have Iraq war and Afghanistan War and soon to come Iran war
and then we Bail out Banks
and told no healthcare for you
then the Depression

and now No Money for you No Healthcare for you
and Oh by the way Insurance Companies raise Medicare supplements after we bailed you out

and now more taxes so we can FIX Social Security

I don't know about you
I voted for Obama to GET ME OUT OF IRAQ

OBAMA
I have a solution to fix Social Security and Help give America Healtcare

GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ
that will save you a few Billion and trillions right there and stop corruption at its highest level

[w4rma]

246. … (nt)