• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sanders, Warren introduce bill to hike Social Security checks

Anomalism

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Thoughts?

Sanders, Warren introduce bill to hike Social Security checks | TheHill

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are teaming up on a bill that would hand Social Security recipients a $580 check and pay for it by trimming tax perks for corporate executives. The progressive duo unveiled new legislation Thursday that would cut checks for millions of Americans that rely on Social Security benefits, weeks after the Obama administration announced there would be no cost-of-living increase to payments in 2016. “At a time when senior poverty is going up and more than two-thirds of the elderly population rely on Social Security for more than half of their income, our job must be to expand, not cut, Social Security," said Sanders, who is running for president.
Click to expand...
 
Liberals introduce bill to rob Peter to pay Paul. How does this sort of thing even count as news any more?
 
Anomalism said:
Thoughts?

Sanders, Warren introduce bill to hike Social Security checks | TheHill
Click to expand...

WTF? Tying stuff to CEO pay increases makes no sense at all.

Under his bill with Warren, Americans who receive benefits from Social Security, veterans benefits or equivalent state or local programs would receive a one-time payment. The pair noted that the check would equal 3.9 percent of existing benefits, the same percentage that CEO pay rose in 2014.
Click to expand...

Even assuming that closing this CEO pay tax "loophole" would raise some tax revenue it has nothing to do with retirement cost of living. How can one justify paying for any "one time" expense by permanently raising taxes? This bill is pure political pandering and has ZERO chance of being passed.

The most moroniic part of this latest income redistribution idea is that federal funds should go to those getting "equivalent" state or local (governemnt retirement?) programs yet exclude all other American retirees that receive private pensions. Do these "fairness" folks believe that only government retirees deserve these speical "one time" handouts and that those funds should be taken from the SS/VA benefit "trust funds"?
 
cpwill said:
Most Social Security benefits go to those at the top. This is vote-buying pandering, not real attempts to help those in poverty.
Click to expand...

Actually, this would help those in poverty. The system is far from perfect, but it's unrealistic to assume we can uproot and reform the entire system.
 
cpwill said:
Most Social Security benefits go to those at the top. This is vote-buying pandering, not real attempts to help those in poverty.
Click to expand...

It is an attempt to help the retired.
 
Fletch said:
Liberals introduce bill to rob Peter to pay Paul. How does this sort of thing even count as news any more?
Click to expand...

I think the take away from this is that we now know who Sander's running mate would be.
 
cpwill said:
Most Social Security benefits go to those at the top. This is vote-buying pandering, not real attempts to help those in poverty.
Click to expand...

I am curious how social security benefits mostly go to those "at the top," would you please elaborate?

Edit: I just saw your post on this specific topic. I will read it there, thanks.
 
Last edited:
You want to help me? Give tax incentives to employers to raise pay to me. Or just cut the federal income tax by a bit on everyone and reduce the amount of money the government can use. Just a thought. Both good ways to give me my hard earned money back instead of demanding the company pay me more so you can tax me more.
 
fmw said:
It is an attempt to help the retired.
Click to expand...

There's always room for Walmart greeters is a few bucks is all it would take to turn their financial outlook.
 
Fletch said:
Liberals introduce bill to rob Peter to pay Paul. How does this sort of thing even count as news any more?
Click to expand...

You would probably need to define "Peter" as "Corporate CEO" and "Paul" as "Social Security Recipient," but otherwise, yea, it is a distribution of wealth.
 
Anomalism said:
Thoughts?

Sanders, Warren introduce bill to hike Social Security checks | TheHill
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding cpwill's comment about social security mostly helping those at the top, this seems like a valid policy. We already know that giving financial influxes of cash to those at the bottom of the economic ladder are more likely to benefit a larger segment of the population because those are the people that need to turn around and spend that money on basic necessities which, in turn, helps other businesses.
 
MrT said:
Notwithstanding cpwill's comment about social security mostly helping those at the top, this seems like a valid policy. We already know that giving financial influxes of cash to those at the bottom of the economic ladder are more likely to benefit a larger segment of the population because those are the people that need to turn around and spend that money on basic necessities which, in turn, helps other businesses.
Click to expand...
If that was the goal, this would be targeted to lower payment recipients. It isn't.
 
cpwill said:
Most Social Security benefits go to those at the top. This is vote-buying pandering, not real attempts to help those in poverty.
Click to expand...

Well, the small fraction at the top get $580, and the far more seniors living closer to poverty get $580 per person, so not sure what your point is. As a share of income, the poor will get far more.
 
cpwill said:
If that was the goal, this would be targeted to lower payment recipients. It isn't.
Click to expand...

Or, Sanders and Warren might figure it would be harder to pass as a check just to the poor, and any attempt to means test anything is a mess, especially for seniors, who might have low income but be sitting on a lot of assets but someone with the same income has 1/10th as much invested. Etc.

Edit: And to be honest, this is for show. The GOP House isn't going to pass this, and neither will the Senate, not in an election year, not when it's been sponsored by a pair of liberal democrats. I don't mind shows like this because they can serve to highlight differences in the parties and where the priorities are. The GOP is falling all over themselves to cut taxes on the wealthy on tax plans that have no chance of passage, so this is just the other act of that kind of show.
 
Last edited:
It's just an extension of the Democrat debate when Sanders and Hildebeast were trying to outdo each other in how much they could give away for "Free."

I'd like to see Democrats try to win on ideas just one time, rather than the endless voter importations, giveaways and voter fraud.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
Or, Sanders and Warren might figure it would be harder to pass as a check just to the poor, and any attempt to means test anything is a mess, especially for seniors, who might have low income but be sitting on a lot of assets but someone with the same income has 1/10th as much invested. Etc.

Edit: And to be honest, this is for show. The GOP House isn't going to pass this, and neither will the Senate, not in an election year, not when it's been sponsored by a pair of liberal democrats. I don't mind shows like this because they can serve to highlight differences in the parties and where the priorities are. The GOP is falling all over themselves to cut taxes on the wealthy on tax plans that have no chance of passage, so this is just the other act of that kind of show.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't. It would even be handy politics.

Which is what this is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom