• 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

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Do Any Dems/Liberals/Progressives Support Obamas Cuts To Social Security?

Yes?
No?
Why?
 
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.
 
It depends on the whole package, but I am not entirely opposed to the cuts.
 
Do Any Dems/Liberals/Progressives Support Obamas Cuts To Social Security?

Yes?
No?
Why?

No ... he is trying to pacify the right wing nuts and that is wrong. I support about 72% of his decisions/polices ... not this one!

Although, I am left leaning I am ala carte on issues and not a party loyalist.
 
Because those on SS get paid more than those working now........

That will not last...........people will get pissed .

Those around me (on SS) pay $500 month rent. I can only pay $190 month working 3/4 time...........
Same with all those working jobs today.
 
Do Any Dems/Liberals/Progressives Support Obamas Cuts To Social Security?

Yes?
No?
Why?

I don't think it's the right way to cut social security, and I don't think it cuts enough in the long term, but I do agree with the idea of cutting social security.
 
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.
Do you have any evidence of this? Any at all? Or is your statement just as it seems--empty, meaningless political rhetoric
 
No ... he is trying to pacify the right wing nuts and that is wrong. I support about 72% of his decisions/polices ... not this one!

Although, I am left leaning I am ala carte on issues and not a party loyalist.
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?
 
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.

Are you kidding me? With federal spending at 24% and only daring to ax to create federal revenue at 17% of GDP that leaves a deficit of 40%; requiring that we borrow over $3 billion per day or about $1 trillion per year. If that is not "broke" then what is?
 
Social Security is something people were told they would get and in many cases they paid into it and earned it. Social Security is one of the last cuts we should be making, at least to the previous generations. If they want to tell my generations or future generations that it is not going to be there so those people have a lifetime to prepare I may be more open to it, but those on SS should get what they were told they would get.
 
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.

Thats what happens when government "subsidizes" green energy. It goes in the pockets of the well connected and the business is closed.
 
Because those on SS get paid more than those working now........

That will not last...........people will get pissed .

Those around me (on SS) pay $500 month rent. I can only pay $190 month working 3/4 time...........
Same with all those working jobs today.

You do realize that the amount retirees receive depends on what their salary was at the time of retirement, so the amount they received differs. Not everyone on SS can afford 500 dollars a month rent.
 
NOOOO! You cannot touch Social Security, EVER! We have PROMISED this money to ourselves!!!

Oh, sorry, I forgot - only members of the Unthinking Left are welcome to talk.
 
I just think that we should privatize SS and leave a government option for those who trust the gov to deal with their retirement. I'd rather not pay into a system my entire working life only to never see it when I retire. I highly highly doubt that SS will be sustained by then.
 
When you say "gave all the money to the rich", who gave it away and what amount?

The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.
 
Social Security is something people were told they would get and in many cases they paid into it and earned it. Social Security is one of the last cuts we should be making, at least to the previous generations. If they want to tell my generations or future generations that it is not going to be there so those people have a lifetime to prepare I may be more open to it, but those on SS should get what they were told they would get.

SS is a Ponzi scheme. If we want to wring as much out of it as possible it must be means tested. I am in favor of getting rid of it for future workers, yes. For those who are now on it or will be on it if they have other means of income then a proportion of that would have go against their SS share. It doesn't matter what was promised eighty years ago young workers should not bear the burden of the cost of the system which they will not benefit from. We can print more money to sustain those who are on SS and need it but the program must not have the bulk of the burden on workers who are generally poorer that those who are now benefiting from it.
 
SS is a Ponzi scheme. If we want to wring as much out of it as possible it must be means tested. I am in favor of getting rid of it for future workers, yes. For those who are now on it or will be on it if they have other means of income then a proportion of that would have go against their SS share. It doesn't matter what was promised eighty years ago young workers should not bear the burden of the cost of the system which they will not benefit from. We can print more money to sustain those who are on SS and need it but the program must not have the bulk of the burden on workers who are generally poorer that those who are now benefiting from it.

I understand what you are saying, but previous generations paid our government that money and were promised returns in their later years. Our country has an obligation to them. I am all for reform to the SS program or dissolving it all together, but not for the people are country has an obligation to.
 
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.

It's disturbing that people actually think this. Tax revenue as a percent of GDP is the same as it was in the '50s-'60s. The level of debt, however, is way way larger. The bigger the debt gets, the higher the interest payments get, causing the debt to grow even further. The debt crisis needs to be solved before the current exponential growth of debt destroys this country.
 
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.

Well that's concise! Totally incorrect, but definitely concise. :congrats:
 
SS is a Ponzi scheme. If we want to wring as much out of it as possible it must be means tested. I am in favor of getting rid of it for future workers, yes. For those who are now on it or will be on it if they have other means of income then a proportion of that would have go against their SS share. It doesn't matter what was promised eighty years ago young workers should not bear the burden of the cost of the system which they will not benefit from. We can print more money to sustain those who are on SS and need it but the program must not have the bulk of the burden on workers who are generally poorer that those who are now benefiting from it.

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 understand what you are saying, but previous generations paid our government that money and were promised returns in their later years. Our country has an obligation to them. I am all for reform to the SS program or dissolving it all together, but not for the people are country has an obligation to.

And those recipients who are depending on SS as the sole means will still be receiving it and thus the obligation in their case will be upheld. For those who do have other income SS must be reduced by some proportion so those who do depend on it can receive their full share and not have it reduce due to budget considerations. Also do I need really to point out that the older recipients did not pay their fair share into SS I remember back during Bush the Elder's Administration the proportion of the workers income for SS was increased to make SS solvent longer. So for some of the older workers they may have been promised SS but they have not payed in as much and if they have other income then I think it is fair that a proportion of that count against the SS benefit.
 
I am a secret progressive poe. That said, the only meaningful thing we can do is mean test SS. Anything short of that will not save the system with full benefits to recipients. eventually the autocrats are going to run out of money to help anybody with if they don't learn that everybody cannot be made not poor.
 
Back
Top Bottom