You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #84: It isn't a welfare program and making it more progressive won't make it a welfare program. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. It isn't a welfare program and making it more progressive won't make it a welfare program.
Means testing would make it but nobody serious is suggesting that so it is just a strawman you bring out from time to time.

The reality is support for SS even among the rich is high. It is the ultimate safety net. There are plenty of middle class people who were once rich due to lawsuit, fraud, criminal activity, illness, or death in family. While they may not be struggling SS allows them to stretch their money further.

Just because the deal isn't a sweet (lower ROI) doesn't mean you will see widespread support to demolish it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -What did the Fiscal Commission report actually SAY about Social Security? johnaries  Dec-27-10 02:57 PM   #0 
  - Complete BS - unrec.  TBF   Dec-27-10 02:58 PM   #1 
  - Not BS. The items the OP stated are in there. You can't make them disappear by calling it BS.  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:06 PM   #3 
     - The intent of the OP is to tell us it is not Obama's intention to dismantle SS -  TBF   Dec-27-10 03:17 PM   #16 
     - Yes, that is the point. But what evidence do you have to present?  johnaries   Dec-27-10 03:34 PM   #32 
        - Obviously you did not read the journal entry I pointed you to -  TBF   Dec-27-10 03:42 PM   #44 
           - All rhetoric and "cherry-picking"  johnaries   Dec-27-10 03:50 PM   #51 
              - I can't teach you to read -  TBF   Dec-27-10 03:57 PM   #56 
                 - Oh, I can read.  johnaries   Dec-27-10 05:27 PM   #70 
     - I can call bullshit on expensive dressing added to a poison ivy salad, though  eridani   Dec-28-10 02:49 AM   #111 
  - Raising the retirement age is the only thing that truly disturbs me, but if they do...  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:05 PM   #2 
  - You make a good point.  johnaries   Dec-27-10 03:15 PM   #13 
  - Evolution will change the health of 65-year-olds?  WinkyDink   Dec-27-10 03:31 PM   #26 
  - Nothing, actually, they blew their deadline and didn't get the required votes  gratuitous   Dec-27-10 03:07 PM   #4 
  - bullshit. they say it must be protected while they recommend destroying it.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:07 PM   #5 
  - Which recommendations actually "destroy" social security?  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:09 PM   #6 
  - Means testing, raising the retirement age, changing the COLA...ALL CUTS  jtown1123   Dec-27-10 03:12 PM   #9 
  - Okay. So if we started cutting national defense spending, would you say we are destroying it?  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:17 PM   #17 
  - all these cuts lead to the unravelling of the program. Will it be destroyed overnight? No.  jtown1123   Dec-27-10 03:22 PM   #20 
  - I'm not sure I buy that it will unravel them. I think it would make them slightly less beneficial.  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:39 PM   #37 
  - i guess semantically we'll agree to disagree. I find it unconscionable  jtown1123   Dec-28-10 10:46 AM   #127 
  - re raising the retirement age: the report does mention a "hardship" provision for those  CTyankee   Dec-27-10 03:46 PM   #49 
  - That provision was not well fleshed out and seems like some half assed throw in  jtown1123   Dec-28-10 10:33 AM   #123 
  - +1000  BrklynLiberal   Dec-27-10 05:41 PM   #79 
  - Also, our national defense spending is absurd. It could definitely be cut  jtown1123   Dec-27-10 03:23 PM   #21 
  - Of course it is. I think defense should be cut dramatically. That still wouldn't be "destroying" it.  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:37 PM   #36 
  - Hardly the same.  WinkyDink   Dec-27-10 03:32 PM   #27 
     - It is the same. If "cut = destroy" on one budget item, then it must mean that for all of them.  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:36 PM   #35 
        - not about cuts. about the deform of the financing structure. which = "destroy"  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 05:29 PM   #71 
           - How does making it solvent = "destroy"?  johnaries   Dec-27-10 10:25 PM   #97 
              - Raising full-benefits age. I hope you plan to like your job for a long, long time.  WinkyDink   Dec-28-10 10:29 AM   #121 
              - You are not reading the facts. SS can be made solvent by lifting the cap entirely  jtown1123   Dec-28-10 10:38 AM   #124 
  - The COLA could reduce or increase SS payments  Recursion   Dec-27-10 04:12 PM   #64 
  - And repeating the original question - how is that "destroying" SS?  johnaries   Dec-27-10 11:03 PM   #98 
     - Have you read all the recent articles where he says he wants to "reform" SS?  jtown1123   Dec-28-10 10:49 AM   #128 
  - raising the cap to 90% is merely fulfilling the original design of the program.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:13 PM   #10 
  - Yes, that is correct. It was always supposed to capture 90% but they let it fall behind to 86  jtown1123   Dec-27-10 03:15 PM   #14 
  - Well if you believe taking 40 years means never...  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:18 PM   #18 
  - It will affect me directly. I will be retiring in 40 years. so yes I care.  jtown1123   Dec-27-10 03:26 PM   #22 
  - You need to re-read what you just responded to, because you totally didn't get it.  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:33 PM   #30 
  - um, 90% was in the original social security legislation. why should they take 40 years  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:32 PM   #28 
     - I didn't say they should. I was just responding to your logic.  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:35 PM   #33 
        - Whoops, my error. that was the earlier deficit commission.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:39 PM   #38 
           - It seems to me like you will believe any negative outcomes and zero positive outcomes...  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:40 PM   #40 
              - it seems to me that after getting robbed for 30 years one would be well-advised to pay attention  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:43 PM   #45 
                 - Oooh! Kin-ky! How, exactly, have we been "robbed" for 30 years?  johnaries   Dec-28-10 12:06 AM   #103 
                    - Wow, you must really hate Social Security! What he was commenting on  jtown1123   Dec-28-10 10:52 AM   #129 
  - But you're acting like a 60-year-long retirement age increase has already happened  Recursion   Dec-27-10 04:13 PM   #65 
  - Which recommendations actually "destroy" social security?  DJ13   Dec-27-10 03:18 PM   #19 
  - Where, exactly, do they recommend destroying it?  johnaries   Dec-27-10 03:11 PM   #8 
  - half the recommendations are for measures which turn it into a welfare program.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:14 PM   #12 
  - Which ones? The ones that make it MORE progressive while still retaining universal payout?  Statistical   Dec-27-10 03:31 PM   #25 
     - the "progressivity" is what turns it into a welfare program. you want progressivity,  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:44 PM   #46 
     - So, you are against the proposals because they are PROGRESSIVE?  johnaries   Dec-27-10 08:49 PM   #90 
     - Nothing wrong with fiddling the initial baseline benefits calculation--  eridani   Dec-28-10 02:55 AM   #112 
        - The point is the comisssion didn't advocate means testing.  Statistical   Dec-28-10 07:51 AM   #117 
           - The Fiscal Commission deserves to be attacked. Did you see the corporatist  jtown1123   Dec-28-10 11:03 AM   #131 
  - Read the analysis from Social Security experts...  jtown1123   Dec-27-10 03:16 PM   #15 
  - Agreed. Double Speak.  jtown1123   Dec-27-10 03:13 PM   #11 
  - Social Security is a huge feather in the cap for Dems. If we allow cuts, we ensure our political  jtown1123   Dec-27-10 03:28 PM   #23 
  - Some guy wrote a book and it's the only thing that predicts the future?  jaxx   Dec-27-10 05:36 PM   #77 
  - Wow can't believe someone is trying to defend the BS Commission. Here's my response:  jtown1123   Dec-27-10 03:10 PM   #7 
  - Thank you for finding an actual analysis, instead of rhetoric.  johnaries   Dec-27-10 03:33 PM   #29 
  - Thanks for some facts rather than the shrill DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY.  Statistical   Dec-27-10 03:30 PM   #24 
  - "Making the payout more progressive = " means-testing. The details here will be paramount.  WinkyDink   Dec-27-10 03:33 PM   #31 
  - The current system is progressive. More progressive doesn't mean means testing.  Statistical   Dec-27-10 03:36 PM   #34 
  - Actually, this would only keep the regressiveness in place. "Progressive" would be TOP-DOWN.  WinkyDink   Dec-27-10 03:41 PM   #41 
  - Are you actually saying SS is regressive? ROFL, No sense and discussing it then.  Statistical   Dec-27-10 03:44 PM   #47 
     - Taking taxes starting at the bottom wages? Why, yes, that is regressive.  WinkyDink   Dec-28-10 09:44 AM   #119 
  - people with incomes of $10 million typically don't collect SS. But if they do,  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:55 PM   #54 
     - Who says they wouldn't collect or deserve nothing back?  Statistical   Dec-27-10 04:08 PM   #60 
     - means testing & "more progressive on the higher end" = same.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 05:56 PM   #82 
        - It isn't a welfare program and making it more progressive won't make it a welfare program.  Statistical   Dec-27-10 06:02 PM   #84 
           - the reality is, when the relatively wealthy get little benefit from it, but fund the majority of it,  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 06:50 PM   #86 
              - Again, it seems that you are against this because it is "too progressive"  johnaries   Dec-27-10 10:08 PM   #95 
                 - Please don't throw me into that briar patch!  hansberrym   Dec-28-10 07:45 AM   #116 
                    - You make it seem like it is impossible for SS to manage the cap & benefit formula  Statistical   Dec-28-10 10:44 AM   #126 
     - +1000  jtown1123   Dec-28-10 10:40 AM   #125 
  - By your definition, they are already doing "means testing".  johnaries   Dec-27-10 03:41 PM   #42 
  - they *are* already doing means-testing.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:50 PM   #52 
     - So, the "means-testing" argument is irrelevent.  johnaries   Dec-27-10 03:54 PM   #53 
        - SS is already means-tested. The additional measures being discussed do nothing but further under-  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:56 PM   #55 
           - It isn't a universal program - it is a "safety net".  johnaries   Dec-27-10 04:04 PM   #58 
              - talk about rhetoric. it's not a "safety net". it covers all workers who paid in, whether they need  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 04:09 PM   #61 
                 - And the commission wants to change that to 100% pay in and 100% get benefits.  Statistical   Dec-27-10 04:11 PM   #62 
                    - the recommendations of the commission have nothing to do with "making 100% pay".  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 04:14 PM   #67 
                       - try re-reading the post. The commission wants to include currently excluded persons by 2020. n/t  Statistical   Dec-27-10 04:18 PM   #68 
                          - i reread my post. there's nothing in it about excluded persons. link? link?  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 05:31 PM   #73 
                             - Who cares about your post. The OP  Statistical   Dec-27-10 05:33 PM   #75 
                                - um, which will be less than 3% of all workers, 71% of them in 7 states, &  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 05:47 PM   #80 
                                   - All future employees will be required to "join" pension or not.  Statistical   Dec-27-10 05:58 PM   #83 
                                      - the majority of state & local government employees already pay into SS.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 06:51 PM   #87 
                                         - Whoa, wait a mintue. A lot of people complained about the  johnaries   Dec-27-10 09:28 PM   #94 
                                            - most state & local government workers already pay into SS. as for the rest of your bullshit.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 11:24 PM   #100 
                                               - I'm just trying to clarify some some points, whether you "said" them  johnaries   Dec-28-10 12:15 AM   #104 
  - 69 is unacceptable. But so is your example. Public school teachers have pensions.  phleshdef   Dec-27-10 03:45 PM   #48 
  - SS is already means-tested in two ways.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:49 PM   #50 
     - Even with 100% repayment of trust fund + interest SS is insolvent.  Statistical   Dec-27-10 04:13 PM   #66 
        - garbage. always.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 05:30 PM   #72 
           - Reality. It hurts. The fact that SS is long term insolvent is not in dispute.  Statistical   Dec-27-10 05:40 PM   #78 
              - it's in dispute by me, since the mid-range projection has been wrong even in the short-term  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 05:52 PM   #81 
              - But we are entering new territory we haven't seen before.  johnaries   Dec-27-10 09:02 PM   #92 
                 - what we know is the bush tax breaks given to the top 1% will pay off the entire TF  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 09:20 PM   #93 
                    - And Obama was against those cuts.  johnaries   Dec-27-10 10:20 PM   #96 
                       - empty bullshit.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 11:20 PM   #99 
                          - Really? How so?  johnaries   Dec-28-10 12:19 AM   #105 
              - This is pure bullshit  eridani   Dec-28-10 03:06 AM   #114 
                 - Well I am not sure why you called it bullshit and then said the same thing as me.  Statistical   Dec-28-10 07:43 AM   #115 
                    - You are the one defending raising retirement age and cutting benefits  eridani   Dec-29-10 12:23 AM   #134 
  - NO raise in the retirement age is acceptable, period  eridani   Dec-28-10 02:58 AM   #113 
  - If you think a commission headed by Alan Simpson is out to enhance SS, I've got a bridge.....  WinkyDink   Dec-27-10 03:40 PM   #39 
  - Rhetoric. Please read the report. nt  johnaries   Dec-27-10 03:42 PM   #43 
     - consider the source isn't rhetoric, it's common sense.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 03:58 PM   #57 
     - It doesn't make any sense. Therefore, how could it be "common sense"?  johnaries   Dec-27-10 04:07 PM   #59 
        - bullshit. the leaders of the catfood commission & most of the members are on record  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 04:11 PM   #63 
           - That's simply not true.  johnaries   Dec-27-10 05:03 PM   #69 
              - um, yes, it is. but i don't expect you to admit it.  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 05:34 PM   #76 
                 - No, it's not. I researched each of Obama's appointees myself.  johnaries   Dec-27-10 08:36 PM   #88 
                    - i did my own research. fuck all the lying traitors  Hannah Bell   Dec-27-10 11:54 PM   #102 
                       - And would you care to share that with us? Or are we all "lying traitors"  johnaries   Dec-28-10 12:57 AM   #107 
                       - and would you care to share that research, or is it contrary to your  johnaries   Dec-28-10 01:06 AM   #108 
     - Wise up. The "report" is what is the mere rhetoric. Remember the "Maine?" Well, remember the "public  WinkyDink   Dec-28-10 09:50 AM   #120 
  - Very good post.  jaxx   Dec-27-10 05:31 PM   #74 
  - K&R&Bookmarked.  great white snark   Dec-27-10 06:14 PM   #85 
  - This is a Republicans wet dream considering they've wanted to kill  neverforget   Dec-27-10 08:44 PM   #89 
  - Please explain. HOW is it on the "list"? I'm not looking for rhetoric  johnaries   Dec-27-10 08:53 PM   #91 
     - It's on the Republican's list but Obama doesn't have to go there. But he's  neverforget   Dec-27-10 11:53 PM   #101 
        - SS is known as the "3rd rail" for good reason.  johnaries   Dec-28-10 12:44 AM   #106 
        - The premise is the problem. SS is solvent.  WinkyDink   Dec-28-10 10:30 AM   #122 
        - SS is not solvent.  Statistical   Dec-28-10 10:52 AM   #130 
        - Always cuts for the those that need it but never a tax increase on those that  neverforget   Dec-28-10 11:43 AM   #132 
        - I think he does have to go there  pipi_k   Dec-28-10 08:18 AM   #118 
           - Since privatization failed under Bush, they'll try to starve it to death,  neverforget   Dec-28-10 11:48 AM   #133 
  - Considering what happened with the "Bush tax cuts".  PoliticAverse   Dec-28-10 01:58 AM   #109 
  - We'll see...  walldude   Dec-28-10 02:06 AM   #110 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC