Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:57 AM Dec 2012

Why Aren't We Talking About EXPANDING Social Security and Medicare? [View all]

Why Aren't We Talking About EXPANDING Social Security and Medicare?

by Troubadour

There has been a lot of rhetoric around fiscal talks in Washington that "everything is on the table," but as far as the media coverage of these talks is concerned, that hasn't even been remotely true - barely a fraction of the available options are reportedly being discussed, and ALL of them are basically conservative: All of them revolve around merely allowing current tax law to take its course vs. instituting suicidal cuts to the safety nets that underpin our nation's economy.

Where is the discussion of raising the top tax rates not by the mere 2-3% that would follow the expiration of Bush tax cuts for this bracket, but by 4%, 5%, 10%, and so on? Where is the discussion of reprioritizing America's federal budget toward actually serving its citizens and away from the wasteful culture of corporate subsidies and Pentagon corruption that now practically bury our economy? And where is the discussion of reducing the age of eligibility of Social Security and/or Medicare? Where is the discussion of increasing benefits for these programs?

There can be no "bargain" while the debate consists entirely of conservative viewpoints arguing with the radical right, and certainly not while Democrats are content not to rock the boat in such an obviously illegitimate and ill-advised state of affairs. Nor is it acceptable to just passively go along with a corrupt, propagandized media that grants sole legitimacy to the values and interests of the wealthy, pretending as if the only options on the table are to cut a little or cut a lot. Not only are those not the only options, those aren't even rational options under the circumstances, and Nobel laureate economists have lined up miles deep to tell us so.

Corporate profits and the wealth of the wealthy are not the reasons we have an economy, and are certainly not the definition of economy: They are luxuries, unlike education, transportation, communications, law enforcement, environmental protection, healthcare programs of every stripe, and Social Security - all things that conservatives are insisting need to be cut in order to facilitate the continued explosion of the former. This is literally an attempt by a vanishingly small group of people to turn an entire national economy and its government into their private property and everyone else into second-class citizens completely dependent on their voluntary largesse to even survive. That's insane and anti-American, and I will not stand for it.

As far as I'm concerned, the "discussion" has not even begun until these basic facts are acknowledged and we can begin debating the right question: By how much we raise top income and capital gains taxes, and by how much we expand Medicare, Social Security, and other economy-promoting programs. Negative numbers on either subject are not under legitimate discussion here. To whatever extent there is any "waste, fraud, and abuse" left to remove from these programs - probably about the same amount as the blood you can squeeze from a stone - all of the savings must remain in those programs rather than lightening the largely fictional tax "burdens" of those who have never and will never actually be burdened by them.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/09/1168407/-Why-Aren-t-We-Talking-About-EXPANDING-Social-Security-and-Medicare

Yeah, where is the advocacy?

The Rebuild America Act therefore replaces the Social Security COLA formula with one that better accounts for cost inflation in the products and services that older workers pay for. It raises benefits across the board. And it pays for these improvements and addresses the program’s long-term revenue shortfall by “scrapping the cap” – eliminating the loophole that shelters incomes above $110,100 from Social security taxes.

Can we do this now?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021861071

Dem Senator Introduces Bill To Lift Social Security’s Tax Cap, Extend Its Solvency For Decades
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021871773



Note:

Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified


49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Both are already expanding in cost terms banned from Kos Dec 2012 #1
The OP isn't about cost, and ProSense Dec 2012 #2
Yes, I believe that caps should rise before benefits are cut. banned from Kos Dec 2012 #5
WTF? ProSense Dec 2012 #6
I would not change the eligibility ages at all. banned from Kos Dec 2012 #9
You're ProSense Dec 2012 #10
No, current benefits are generous. banned from Kos Dec 2012 #15
Generous as compared to what? TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #20
Generous? Wow. Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #35
You're wasting your time imo. Rex Dec 2012 #36
After putting into the system for 30 years, my disabled roommate gets $811 SSDI TexasBushwhacker Dec 2012 #43
wow! My lazy good for nothing brother brokechris Dec 2012 #46
Benefits should NEVER be cut. Never. Benefits should be increased. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #44
because we vote for centrists in primaries Enrique Dec 2012 #3
Begich and Harkin ProSense Dec 2012 #4
Why isn't Obama talking about it? n/t leftstreet Dec 2012 #7
We have to wait for President Obama to talk about it before we do? ProSense Dec 2012 #8
Well he's kinda the leader of the Party leftstreet Dec 2012 #13
Does he lead our mouths? ProSense Dec 2012 #16
blah, blah, blah, feet to the fire, yeah yeah leftstreet Dec 2012 #19
Good thing you're ProSense Dec 2012 #22
good article riverbendviewgal Dec 2012 #11
If you want to stimulate the economy JEB Dec 2012 #12
The 1% isn't concerned about more economic benefit, they already won that war. They are concerned Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #31
Because this country is all about screwing people! L0oniX Dec 2012 #14
no, because 47% voted last month to cut the benfits because they beleive the bullshit pasto76 Dec 2012 #32
for the U.S. to meet the standards of modern western democracy it would have to expand a great deal Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #17
Money is speech, corporations are people, corrupt Congress, that's how. xtraxritical Dec 2012 #34
Good question. Rec'd. nt Zorra Dec 2012 #18
That's the one question that isn't politically correct to ask. PDJane Dec 2012 #21
Because we have no representatives in DC Doctor_J Dec 2012 #23
The proposals in the OP ProSense Dec 2012 #24
Because wall street have been planning to steal that money for years and years Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #25
+1000 Cleita Dec 2012 #26
Ironically, Edmund Burke criticized the National Assembly in France burnsei sensei Dec 2012 #28
The reasons an expansion of these programs burnsei sensei Dec 2012 #27
We let corporations and the right dictate what we talk about AZ Progressive Dec 2012 #29
It has been expanded and is being expanded RB TexLa Dec 2012 #30
These charts are deceptive.... Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2012 #38
Lower infant mortality has the same effect on life expectancy and are part of the chart RB TexLa Dec 2012 #40
Republicans MAKE them deceptive by claiming people live longer... Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2012 #41
because conservatives control the white house and congress nt msongs Dec 2012 #33
Lower the retirement age to 55.... Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2012 #37
Yes. n/t ProSense Dec 2012 #39
it's not on the table; because the table is set by the ruling class. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #42
We lack Franklin Roosevelt's 75 seat Democratic Senate majority and a powerful US House caucus. Selatius Dec 2012 #45
Yes, that would help, but ProSense Dec 2012 #47
Kick! n/t ProSense Dec 2012 #48
Because both parties operate primarily out of or within mmonk Dec 2012 #49
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Aren't We Talking Abo...