neverforget
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-27-10 08:44 PM
Response to Original message |
| 89. This is a Republicans wet dream considering they've wanted to kill |
|
Social Security since it first passed. Now that the debt/deficit is all the rage in DC, this is on the list to be cut. Thank God the $800 Billion tax cuts passed and the $725 Billion defense budget passed. Otherwise there would be money to help the People.
|
| -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