• 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!

Do Any Dems/Liberals/Progressives Support Obamas Cuts To Social Security?

Do Any Dems/Liberals/Progressives Support Obamas Cuts To Social Security?


  • Total voters
    12
What of the other 70+ income redistribution schemes that comprise the federal "safety net"? SS was considered wonderful until it no longer produced a surplus to be spent on other federal programs. Why not simply increase the SS "contribution" amount to correct for the current (recent) shortfall? That is EXACTLY what Obama is doing for all of the other "prefered" federal social program spending that he is INCREASING. Why can we add PPACA and "Pre-K" aid yet now must cut SS/Medicare?

I never cared for SS. I recognized it as a raw deal since at some point some generation it going to pay in it and get nothing out of it. The issue is that Congress is going to gimmick the system for current beneficiaries (give better benefits) and by loading the cost on existing workers (making it harder for them in their current life) and making it unsustainable when it is their turn to benefit (kicking the can down the road only works as long as you have road to work with).

SS is one that everyone is forced to participate in. Obviously the Dems want even more mandatory programs that are to be paid by the workers for those who won't be working. The only good thing about it is that the road will end a lot sooner than otherwise.
 
I never cared for SS. I recognized it as a raw deal since at some point some generation it going to pay in it and get nothing out of it. The issue is that Congress is going to gimmick the system for current beneficiaries (give better benefits) and by loading the cost on existing workers (making it harder for them in their current life) and making it unsustainable when it is their turn to benefit (kicking the can down the road only works as long as you have road to work with).

SS is one that everyone is forced to participate in. Obviously the Dems want even more mandatory programs that are to be paid by the workers for those who won't be working. The only good thing about it is that the road will end a lot sooner than otherwise.

Not quite correct, but SS/Medicare "contributions" are as close as we get to a universal federal tax. If you eliminate SS/Medicare then many folks will then have ZERO federal taxation, thus the liberal dream - only "the rich" pay any federal payroll/income taxes as the rest are hidden and passed down to the poor/middle class (mostly via invisible price inflation).
 
Not quite correct, but SS/Medicare "contributions" are as close as we get to a universal federal tax. If you eliminate SS/Medicare then many folks will then have ZERO federal taxation, thus the liberal dream - only "the rich" pay any federal payroll/income taxes as the rest are hidden and passed down to the poor/middle class (mostly via invisible price inflation).

The issue of having some sort of universal federal tax is a separate issue to SS. Everyone should pay taxes for the necessary functions that government provides such as national defense and the execution of laws and such. The problem is that the promises made generations ago which cannot be maintained mathematically must be delt with by phasing out those systems. I favor a laws encouraging if not outright mandating "retirement" accounts and I put that in quotes since I believe that it is more on the line of personal maintenance accounts instead, since people can become disabled or ill in addition of wanting to "retire" after some decades of work.
 
The issue of having some sort of universal federal tax is a separate issue to SS. Everyone should pay taxes for the necessary functions that government provides such as national defense and the execution of laws and such. The problem is that the promises made generations ago which cannot be maintained mathematically must be delt with by phasing out those systems. I favor a laws encouraging if not outright mandating "retirement" accounts and I put that in quotes since I believe that it is more on the line of personal maintenance accounts instead, since people can become disabled or ill in addition of wanting to "retire" after some decades of work.

Back to the good old days before SS/Medicare? Just how much "savings" will an average low wage ($30K per year) worker accumulate (especially if then subjected to your "universal" federal taxation)? If you have an insifficient PMA account balance then you will get federal "safety net" benefits anyway, so why work "on the books"? I stopped working "on the books" since my SS will not go up because it is based on my highest earning years. You also ignore that the employer now matches these employee "contributions" at 100%, so the employer gets a huge tax break if SS/Medicare were to "disappear".
 
SS is a Ponzi scheme.

Yes, it is, but this is not the worst part. The collapse of generational pyramid can be prevented by sharply increasing immigration - and tilting it toward younger people.

I find this the leftist allergy toward all and any suggestions of reforming SS especially amusing because the system is horrendously regressive: the payroll tax is by far the biggest tax burden on the poorest, while it is applied to all income under $106,800; on the employer's side, it is a big deterrent for job creation, and, of course, if you don't live to the ripe old age (as the poor less likely to do), you are cheated out your money, and that's the end of it. And what kind of pension system squeezes money out of the working poor to cut big fat checks to the retired rich ? - I hope no one seriously thinks about SS as actual personal savings accounts anymore...

And of course the undiversified nature of the SS Trust Fund -T-bills only - should give pause to anyone - socialist or not. We are taxing people and using the loot to inflate the debt of the same very government, aren't we? Can't our "progressive" friends at least be bothered to look at the experience of places like Norway, with pension treasure chests composed of many balanced elements and basically turned into sovereign wealth funds earning money even during economic downturns, and not at risk of turning into a pumpkin even if national bonds lose their value on the market?
 
If North Korean missiles could reach Florida and Pennsylvania, they could help solve the Social Security issue.

That or institute the society from Logan's Run.
 
Democrats might. Liberals and progressives won't.

I am trying to figure out what you base this on. I am more liberal than democrat. Despite faulty complaints from the lean police(who rarely understand what it means to be either liberal or conservative, democrat or republican), I am about as liberal as one can be. I am staunchly pro civil rights, even when those rights might be used to do things I dislike. I believe in the government trying to ensure some basic level of opportunity and that that opportunity is as good as possible. I favor a strong safety net. Despite that, or maybe in part because of that, I could support such cuts to SS, if the budget package was overall acceptable.

Being a liberal or progressive does not mean unwilling to compromise. Sometimes we have to accept the political realities and get what we can get, and give what we have to give to get that. Compromise is not some evil thing. In fact, it is how things get done.
 
Really? Republicans and conservatives are the only ones who are closed minded and play partisanship games now?

Your own statement begs to differ.

Been the case pretty much my whole life.
 
Yes, it is, but this is not the worst part. The collapse of generational pyramid can be prevented by sharply increasing immigration - and tilting it toward younger people.

Increasing immigration to increase the amount of people paying in would only work on the first generation as birth rates decrease after such point. That is of course assuming they are skilled enough to not just fall under welfare programs.
 
Increasing immigration to increase the amount of people paying in would only work on the first generation as birth rates decrease after such point. That is of course assuming they are skilled enough to not just fall under welfare programs.

Sure, but high rates of immigration can be sustained indefinitely, in theory. (In practice, our relative attractiveness as final destination may not be sustainable, in its own turn).

"Skilled enough" is a nebulous concept - we don't know what skills may be in demand a decade or three from now. Inviting a good gardener from Mexico may be a better long-term investment than importing a hockey player from Russia....

Don't get me wrong: I am all for a complete remaking of Social Security. Just saying that the "Ponzi scheme" aspect we can get away with - for awhile. Indifference of our friends on the left to other obvious flaws of the system is rather puzzling.
 
Do Any Dems/Liberals/Progressives Support Obamas Cuts To Social Security?

Yes?
No?
Why?

I've been accused of being a liberal on his very forum. I don't agree but maybe they're right and I am a liberal so I'll weigh in.

I support phasing out SS over time and replacing it with mandatory contributions each pay day at levels equal to SS contributions into diversified, indexed to the S&P private investment accounts in a way that guarantees continued SS coverage for people who have paid into SS all ther lives but offers a better solution for younger Americans. No withdrawals until 60 and no more than annual equal portions divided by the number of years of their remaining life expectancy plus 5. Preferred withdraws however would be to live off of the return I stead if spending the principle. If a younger worker starts putting away money at 18 every payday and continues to do so every payday until age 60, its very likely they'll be a millionaire at retirement. A conservative annual return on a million dollars is $100,000 a year. Withdraws are tax free like Roth IRAs. Any remaining balance upon the passing of the account holder is fully willable and exempt from inheritance tax. Beats the heck out of SS if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Why is making a minor adjustment to future increases in SS payments an attempt by Obama to "pacify the right wing nuts?" Maybe Obama has gotten some sense and realizes that changes to entitlements have to be made and is no longer kissing the feet of the left wing nuts who oppose any changes to the welfare state. Ever consider that?

Hey ... social security is not entitlements. Those are our gray haired citizens that earned their SS benefit.

Holy smokes ... I suppose next you will be clamoring that 87 years old men should flip burgers so they can earn health insurance benefits as opposed to getting medicare.

No! I will never support cuts to SS checks. Quit subsidizing oil companies and tax havens for uber wealthy and stupid **** wars ... take care of the elderly.
 
Another thing ... I have planned carefully for when I want to retire (albeit I will most likely work til I die by choice). Social Security is EARNED. That should be protected.

Fletch ... I am calling you out! Entitlements are people scamming the system wealthy or poor ... if it is with faking disability, pell OR uber wealthy hiding money in offshore accounts or legislating income by manipulation.


Social Security is earned income ... not inherited or scammed.
 
Sure, but high rates of immigration can be sustained indefinitely, in theory. (In practice, our relative attractiveness as final destination may not be sustainable, in its own turn).

"Skilled enough" is a nebulous concept - we don't know what skills may be in demand a decade or three from now. Inviting a good gardener from Mexico may be a better long-term investment than importing a hockey player from Russia....

Don't get me wrong: I am all for a complete remaking of Social Security. Just saying that the "Ponzi scheme" aspect we can get away with - for awhile. Indifference of our friends on the left to other obvious flaws of the system is rather puzzling.

The point being is that your plan has a high chance of failure. From what I gather you're plan involves just the young which I'm guessing means college aged and since you will need these people paying into Social Security to be productive they will need some sort of higher education, but since most of these individuals are unprepared for college you will most likely need to weed them out in the process as well. This means that you will have only a small percentage of the young immigrant population that will be allowed in. That alone leaves you plan in disrepair, but when you add to the fact that these individuals that are left are well educated you all but lose birth rate expansion that could come from it.

It is true we don't know what skills will be demand in a generation or two, but we can follow trends and from what we know education will most likely only get more valuable as time goes on. Irregardless, a million new people on welfare does nothing to help anything, but merely add to strain of all systems involved. You need high paying jobs so more Social Security is owed that feeds more into the system. A million minimum wage workers adds very little to the pool of money available and will in turn do very little to put balance back into the Ponzi scheme.
 
Back to the good old days before SS/Medicare? Just how much "savings" will an average low wage ($30K per year) worker accumulate (especially if then subjected to your "universal" federal taxation)? If you have an insifficient PMA account balance then you will get federal "safety net" benefits anyway, so why work "on the books"? I stopped working "on the books" since my SS will not go up because it is based on my highest earning years. You also ignore that the employer now matches these employee "contributions" at 100%, so the employer gets a huge tax break if SS/Medicare were to "disappear".

I did not mention anything about going back before those programs. I did point out that "promises" made decades ago we cannot be held to them today since too much time has passed and this is a different country than then. We should be responsible only to those who use SS as the primary or only means of income since they are stuck with it. However , those who do not will have to accept less to keep the system solvent long enough so we can shut it down.

You mention that a "average" worker making $30K cannot save enough that might be true if that person live in a high tax State/city like New York but there are places in the US where they can put away a little at least. Also, it is assumed that the "average" worker will not be able to get better employment over his decades of employment. I realize that life has is vagrancies but over all it is better that a person would be able to put aside money that he would actually have than to trust the government to "keep" for him. Our government is "good" at "investing" these funds in pork projects.

The idea that the employer would get a "tax break" if SS and Medicare would disappear is somewhat a misnomer since when Congress set up these systems the money applied was money to the employee and business were required to do this to hide just how much the employee would have to pay into the system. Again it is better to have a 401k, IRA, or the like so that the employee would have it invested for him and not have go to the government to pay for the Ponzi winners and other government programs that previously benefited when there were a surplus.
 
Yes, it is, but this is not the worst part. The collapse of generational pyramid can be prevented by sharply increasing immigration - and tilting it toward younger people.

I find this the leftist allergy toward all and any suggestions of reforming SS especially amusing because the system is horrendously regressive: the payroll tax is by far the biggest tax burden on the poorest, while it is applied to all income under $106,800; on the employer's side, it is a big deterrent for job creation, and, of course, if you don't live to the ripe old age (as the poor less likely to do), you are cheated out your money, and that's the end of it. And what kind of pension system squeezes money out of the working poor to cut big fat checks to the retired rich ? - I hope no one seriously thinks about SS as actual personal savings accounts anymore...

And of course the undiversified nature of the SS Trust Fund -T-bills only - should give pause to anyone - socialist or not. We are taxing people and using the loot to inflate the debt of the same very government, aren't we? Can't our "progressive" friends at least be bothered to look at the experience of places like Norway, with pension treasure chests composed of many balanced elements and basically turned into sovereign wealth funds earning money even during economic downturns, and not at risk of turning into a pumpkin even if national bonds lose their value on the market?

I agree with all that. The T-bill that that are used in SS are special bills and are non-negotiable and are just a gimmick that was used to justify using the funds for other purposes. I think if Team Roosevelt had the opportunity to do it over they might have tried Index funds. They would have been able to take over the Corporations of the US and made the system more solvent. So there the socialists might have preferred that.

And yes it needs to mentioned that when it came out the Big Lie was that it would be like a personal savings account. We did have the opportunity to have a more diversified system back during Bush the Elder days but due to his inability of using political capital that became a bust.
 
I did not mention anything about going back before those programs. I did point out that "promises" made decades ago we cannot be held to them today since too much time has passed and this is a different country than then. We should be responsible only to those who use SS as the primary or only means of income since they are stuck with it. However , those who do not will have to accept less to keep the system solvent long enough so we can shut it down.

You mention that a "average" worker making $30K cannot save enough that might be true if that person live in a high tax State/city like New York but there are places in the US where they can put away a little at least. Also, it is assumed that the "average" worker will not be able to get better employment over his decades of employment. I realize that life has is vagrancies but over all it is better that a person would be able to put aside money that he would actually have than to trust the government to "keep" for him. Our government is "good" at "investing" these funds in pork projects.

The idea that the employer would get a "tax break" if SS and Medicare would disappear is somewhat a misnomer since when Congress set up these systems the money applied was money to the employee and business were required to do this to hide just how much the employee would have to pay into the system. Again it is better to have a 401k, IRA, or the like so that the employee would have it invested for him and not have go to the government to pay for the Ponzi winners and other government programs that previously benefited when there were a surplus.

SS/Medicare contributions are now about 15% of each employee's gross pay. If you believe that the average worker ($13/hour in Texas) will put even that much ($4,500/year) into their "private" IRA account (and maintain "private" long term disability inurance) then you are simply dreaming. While I agree that many can (and do) use 401K and IRA plans that is not very common for lower wage workers.

Minimum Wage Workers in Texas - 2012

Explaining Why The Median 401(k) Retirement Balance By Age Is Dangerously Low | Financial Samurai
 
Another thing ... I have planned carefully for when I want to retire (albeit I will most likely work til I die by choice). Social Security is EARNED. That should be protected.

Fletch ... I am calling you out! Entitlements are people scamming the system wealthy or poor ... if it is with faking disability, pell OR uber wealthy hiding money in offshore accounts or legislating income by manipulation.


Social Security is earned income ... not inherited or scammed.

Not only is it earned, but it was promised to them and many people rely on it and built their retirement depending on their country following through on what they promised.
 
Hey ... social security is not entitlements. Those are our gray haired citizens that earned their SS benefit.

Holy smokes ... I suppose next you will be clamoring that 87 years old men should flip burgers so they can earn health insurance benefits as opposed to getting medicare.

No! I will never support cuts to SS checks. Quit subsidizing oil companies and tax havens for uber wealthy and stupid **** wars ... take care of the elderly.

I don't precisely support cutting benefits, but I am not categorically opposed to it either. The problem with SS is that it is an inter-generational transfer. Back in the 80's it was recognized that in order for the people who had paid 1% or 2% in SS taxes to get a retirement income, the government needed to collect 13% from current workers. So ironically, I have paid in FAR more than the beneficiaries who were paid out did, but now they are looking to cut MY future benefits. As unfair as this is, and as easily I could cry that they get theirs and I want mine, I recognize the sytem is fundamentally flawed. So the main reason I would support cuts is to make it more attractive to look at other options, like for example a needs based system with private accounts. Those that can accumulate enough in their private accounts (most people) would simply draw from that, but people who could not, could be supported by a partial needs based system. I think everybody wins in that scenario, and more important, nobody loses. I also think that the notion that there is anything about SS that is guaranteed needs to be put to rest, a cut would show that this is simply legislation, not a retirement account with guaranteed benefits.

But again, personally, having contributed the max for the last 15 years, it does frost my arse a bit that anyone thinks I should take the hit.
 
Back
Top Bottom