Statistical
(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.
|
| -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 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread