Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that cutting things like medicare or medicaid (as poor of an ideas as that is) would have direct effects on the budget deficit. However I don't get why Republicans insist on social security having cuts as well. I mean, as we all know social security is not part of the regular budget- it is its own fund, paid directly via the social security payroll taxes and at this time and for some time ahead it has a surplus. No money comes out of the regular budget for that, so if we cut the payouts sure it cuts how much comes out of that particular fund, but it doesn't affect even 1 dollar of our regular national budget- and is not accounting for even 1 dollar of our budget deficit or national debt. So what do they think this will accomplish in regards to the deficit? And do they then plan to cut the amount of social security taxes that are taken out of our paychecks to account for any cuts that are made to benefits? If not, what are they planning to do with that extra social security tax money that they will be getting from all of us once payouts are cut? Because after all, that money goes into the social security fund- NOT into the general budget, so it's not as if that will make more money available for other things.
I just don't get that at all, it makes no sense.
ALL SS money has gone directly into the general budget since Bill Clinton was president. How do you think he created those artificial "projected surpluses"?
Social Security isn't as major a fiscal issue as Medicare/Medicaid (and overall health care expense in general), and the right wing's push isn't really fiscally driven but ideology driven, to privatize social security. They got the chance with the 2007-2009 recession, to go for it since the payroll tax revenue declines during recessions (much less as significant as this one). They could claim... "social security is in the red", as in the government is taking in less than it is spending on it. The deficit wasn't huge, but their talking point couldn't be disproven.
Considering "normal economy", SS isn't an issue at all until about 2035. It is after that there might be a need for reform. But that planning must start now, as opposed to kicking the can for a good few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm
ALL SS money has gone directly into the general budget since Bill Clinton was president. How do you think he created those artificial "projected surpluses"?
Wasn't it the republicans balancing those budgets? Those claims have been made, right here.
BTW, over last 40 years, which few years would you rather hope to model the budget in terms of spending versus revenue?
I know that cutting things like medicare or medicaid (as poor of an ideas as that is) would have direct effects on the budget deficit. However I don't get why Republicans insist on social security having cuts as well. I mean, as we all know social security is not part of the regular budget- it is its own fund, paid directly via the social security payroll taxes and at this time and for some time ahead it has a surplus. No money comes out of the regular budget for that, so if we cut the payouts sure it cuts how much comes out of that particular fund, but it doesn't affect even 1 dollar of our regular national budget- and is not accounting for even 1 dollar of our budget deficit or national debt. So what do they think this will accomplish in regards to the deficit? And do they then plan to cut the amount of social security taxes that are taken out of our paychecks to account for any cuts that are made to benefits? If not, what are they planning to do with that extra social security tax money that they will be getting from all of us once payouts are cut? Because after all, that money goes into the social security fund- NOT into the general budget, so it's not as if that will make more money available for other things.
I just don't get that at all, it makes no sense.
The objective is not to cut Soc Sec, it's to get the FICA taxes collected into the hands of the "Market Geniuses" that really know how to invest it. Of course, these "Geniuses" would get hefty fees for keeping that money, "safe". After all, it is these same "Geniuses", that protected the US from the devastation of the meanies that forced them into making so much off of the mindless buying of houses they couldn't afford. So why wouldn't we rush to turn that over to them?
The objective is not to cut Soc Sec, it's to get the FICA taxes collected into the hands of the "Market Geniuses" that really know how to invest it. Of course, these "Geniuses" would get hefty fees for keeping that money, "safe". After all, it is these same "Geniuses", that protected the US from the devastation of the meanies that forced them into making so much off of the mindless buying of houses they couldn't afford. So why wouldn't we rush to turn that over to them?
This is what I'm afraid of! It seems one of the few programs that really works is angering Republicans so much they want to destroy it, too. I was just trying to figure out if they really believed it was truly a budget deficit issue- and it seems the answer is "no"?
The excess SS funds collected in the past, that compose the "Social Security Trust Fund" have been spend by politicians to fund current (past) programs. It gave them a slush fund to hand out freebies to the voting public. Now, those borrowed monies are coming due, and have to be repaid from general tax revenues. Politicians don't want to be honest and admit they spent the investments of millions of Americans and don't have a way to pay it back. Hence, the desire to change the rules so it doesn't need to be paid back.
This only works when government employees (elected or not) are involved with such a scheme. If it were a bank or private investment firm that stole from investers in this manner, the managers/owners would be in jail.
The excess SS funds collected in the past, that compose the "Social Security Trust Fund" have been spend by politicians to fund current (past) programs. It gave them a slush fund to hand out freebies to the voting public. Now, those borrowed monies are coming due, and have to be repaid from general tax revenues. Politicians don't want to be honest and admit they spent the investments of millions of Americans and don't have a way to pay it back. Hence, the desire to change the rules so it doesn't need to be paid back.
This only works when government employees (elected or not) are involved with such a scheme. If it were a bank or private investment firm that stole from investers in this manner, the managers/owners would be in jail.
The excess SS funds collected in the past, that compose the "Social Security Trust Fund" have been spend by politicians to fund current (past) programs. It gave them a slush fund to hand out freebies to the voting public. Now, those borrowed monies are coming due, and have to be repaid from general tax revenues. Politicians don't want to be honest and admit they spent the investments of millions of Americans and don't have a way to pay it back. Hence, the desire to change the rules so it doesn't need to be paid back.
This only works when government employees (elected or not) are involved with such a scheme. If it were a bank or private investment firm that stole from investers in this manner, the managers/owners would be in jail.
Lets see...Bernie Madorf (sp?) is where? While Blarney Frank is where? The damage caused by Madorf is a fraction of that by Frank and many other elected politicians. Though the motivation (greed) was the same.
Blarney and several others in the house and senate should be sharing space with Madorf...yet they're part of a special, protected class, above the law.
The objective is not to cut Soc Sec, it's to get the FICA taxes collected into the hands of the "Market Geniuses" that really know how to invest it. Of course, these "Geniuses" would get hefty fees for keeping that money, "safe". After all, it is these same "Geniuses", that protected the US from the devastation of the meanies that forced them into making so much off of the mindless buying of houses they couldn't afford. So why wouldn't we rush to turn that over to them?
Reform of the exisitng SS program and privatization of SS are two separate matters. The OP assumes that reform means cutting monthly benefits. But he's mistaken. The reforms proposed are intended to extend the life of SS. Those include raising both the early retirement age and the full retirement age. Full retirement age was raised in the mid-80's gradually from 65 to 67. It's time to raise it again and to raise early retirement to 65. That is consistent with longevity actuarial tables and would go a long way to ensure that SS will be there for our children and grandchildren. By the way none of the proposed changes would affect anyone aged 55 and over.
As far as privatization I'm really surprised that liberals are against this. After all aren't liberals the ones who constantly tell us we should be more like the rest of the world? In the matter of SS the rest of the world is following the lead of our southern neighbor, Chile. Thirty years ago that country foresaw the unsustainability of its SS program (much like our is today) and decided to allow workers to opt out of the government program and to invest their retirement monies in certain stable instruments. Ninety percent took advantage of that opportunity. Today those early retirees get an average of $53,000.00 per year from their investments. That compares to a maximum in this country of about $27,000.00 per year in SS benefits. The success of the Chilean model is now being copied by 29 other countries. Why can't we just be like other countries?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
