View Poll Results: Do Any Dems/Liberals/Progressives Support Obamas Cuts To Social Security?

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 37.50%
  • No

    10 62.50%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

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

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,479

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    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.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,479

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

    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.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    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.

  4. #44
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    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.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  5. #45
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    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.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  6. #46
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious View Post
    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
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #47
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    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.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  8. #48
    Educator
    CaptinSarcastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 03:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,199

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    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.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •