• 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!

Florida GOP sweats over Social Security

Anyone who openly talks about any change for those who are on SS or about to be will be putting their political future st risk not only in Florida, but in all 57 States. Sorry, 50 States I was channeling Obama there for a second.
 
Those already on SS and Medicaid, etc. have no reason to worry for themselves, do they?
 
This is hardly news, and more falls under the "no kidding" category. But, it is the typical arguement when it comes to the GOP (or the Tea Party) when it comes to government spending. The party stands for reductions in government spending, just so long as it is not the spending that directly impacts them. That is a real problem as entitlements are in need of reform (especially since we have more of them now with Obamacare.)

Social Security, as an entitlement debate topic, has come under considerable heat in recent times and at some point reform is needed no matter what Florida's electoral votes say on this. However, that reform will never happen so long as both parties use Social Security as a political tool against their opposition. It is just fact, Republicans will continue to push for reforms to entitlements as a matter of spending. Democrats will continue to lie about Republicans wanting to take all the Senior's checks away.

I would not be surprised to see entitlements trump the economy when it comes to talking points post the Republican nomination going up against Obama. Said another way, have the economy and jobs get derailed by partisan politics of entitlements with plenty of false accusations across the spectrum on what is going on with them and the intention of each party with them. But again, reforms are needed as the math is just there supporting all entitlements are headed for rough times (even though we do not have consensus on exactly when.)
 
that must be why Marco Rubio was so hesitant to mention it in his Senate race, eh? :roll:

old rules slowly apply alot less. sorry MediScarers.

wishful thinking cp and as usual you conveniently avoid evidence that is contrary to what you want :)...but I still love you marine....semper fi
 
Those already on SS and Medicaid, etc. have no reason to worry for themselves, do they?


Hidden in the ryan plan for example...was 10 yrs after it would be instituted there would be a huge surcharge copayment to all on medicare starting at 300.00 per person 600 per senior couple and scaled to rise as costs rise.
 
=OrphanSlug;1059826173]This is hardly news, and more falls under the "no kidding" category. But, it is the typical arguement when it comes to the GOP (or the Tea Party) when it comes to government spending. The party stands for reductions in government spending, just so long as it is not the spending that directly impacts them. That is a real problem as entitlements are in need of reform (especially since we have more of them now with Obamacare.)

Social Security, as an entitlement debate topic, has come under considerable heat in recent times and at some point reform is needed no matter what Florida's electoral votes say on this. However, that reform will never happen so long as both parties use Social Security as a political tool against their opposition. It is just fact, Republicans will continue to push for reforms to entitlements as a matter of spending. Democrats will continue to lie about Republicans wanting to take all the Senior's checks away.
Thing is so many people today are receiving some kind of assistance because of the economy and high unemployment.

The Democrats are high gear with the lies because they can't stand the thought of their Messiah being held to account for all the lies and mistakes he's made.

Obama has been every bit as bas as Carter and what's worse is Carter thought he was doing the right things for the right reasons with Obama who knows what his real game plan is, he changes direction so often.
 
Anyone who openly talks about any change for those who are on SS or about to be will be putting their political future st risk not only in Florida, but in all 57 States. Sorry, 50 States I was channeling Obama there for a second.

You sir are more correct than most of the teaparty cheerleaders on this forum....what they dont realize is the more these youngsters chomp at the bit to get at SS and medicare to rip it up...the more the seniors will dig in....I know there is for some youngsters a belief that seniors are for the most part braindead and/or dumb as doornails...and dont realize whats going on around them...just the opposite is true...they have the time to pay attention and know precisely whats going on all around them....
 
wishful thinking cp and as usual you conveniently avoid evidence that is contrary to what you want

:D it's a gift. however, it remains a fact that even after an atrocious debate performance the straw poll in Florida still went more for Perry than Romney, and it remains a fact that Marco Rubio campaigned on entitlement reform, and beat not only a sitting governor, but then won a three-way-race. Entitlement reform is no longer a third rail of American Politics, and in Republican circles, not grasping it might be more dangerous than doing so.


:)...but I still love you marine....semper fi

uurrah. have a good one, old timer.
 
Hidden in the ryan plan for example...was 10 yrs after it would be instituted there would be a huge surcharge copayment to all on medicare starting at 300.00 per person 600 per senior couple and scaled to rise as costs rise.

a huge copayment on all medicare starting at $300?

now, i'm not a nuclear physicist, but as i look at the amount of money that is spent on medicare.... and I compare that to the sum of $300.... the word that springs into my mind is not "huge". irrespective, prices for medicare-covered services need to rise.

incidentally, did you say that your source for this was a friend said his doctor told him - as opposed to actually being able to cite it?
 
While GOP candidates can try to soft soap this issue... while they can try to avoid this issue in front of the voters ....... while they can present pie-in-the-sky vague programs which "fix the problem" while really not doing so .... while they can even outright lie about their positions to one group while throwing red meat to another group ... there is a fundamental problem that every GOP candidate will have.

The vast majority of the American public is supportive of Social Security and wants to maintain a strong program run by the government even if it means raising FICA taxes especially by popping cap on upper level income earners.

How many GOP'ers can say they believe that same thing?

That basic conflict in positions will open them to doom.

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-08-2010/social_security_75th.html

http://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security

http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm
 
Last edited:
they should tell seniors how rich they could be had a private social security enabled them to invest their benefits with great companies like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

the current bailout if that plan had gone through would be mind boggling. Bernanke would have to clear cut the face of the earth to print enough money.
 
they should tell seniors how rich they could be had a private social security enabled them to invest their benefits with great companies like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

gosh, what would have happened had that been the case?


oh wait, we don't have to wonder.


The current debate about reforming Social Security reminds me of the discussions that occurred in Galveston County, Texas, in 1980, when our county workers were offered a different, and better, retirement alternative to Social Security: They reacted with keen interest and some knee-jerk fear of the unknown. But after 24 years, folks here can say unequivocally that when Galveston County pulled out of the Social Security system in 1981, we were on the road to providing our workers with a better deal than Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal...

Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50% more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683.

• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security, $1,500 instead of $853.

• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.

• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security, $4,540 instead of $1,645.

• Our survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — rather than Social Security's customary onetime $255 survivorship to a spouse (with no minor children). If the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too.

• Our disability benefit pays 60% of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's....

...Most important, we didn't force our children and grandchildren to be unduly taxed and burdened for our retirement care while these fine young people are struggling to raise and provide for their own families....

...The Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would under Social Security. As Galveston County Judge Mark Henry says, “The plan works great. Anyone who spends a few minutes understanding the plan becomes a huge proponent.” Judge Henry says that out of 1,350 county employees, only five have chosen not to participate...
 
Last edited:
I'm sure we would have just accepted the losses in the stock market crash and told seniors tough cookies. Lol
 
While GOP candidates can try to soft soap this issue... while they can try to avoid this issue in front of the voters ....... while they can present pie-in-the-sky vague programs which "fix the problem" while really not doing so .... while they can even outright lie about their positions to one group while throwing red meat to another group ... there is a fundamental problem that every GOP candidate will have.

The vast majority of the American public is supportive of Social Security and wants to maintain a strong program run by the government even if it means raising FICA taxes especially by popping cap on upper level income earners.

How many GOP'ers can say they believe that same thing?

That basic conflict in positions will open them to doom.

Social Security 75th Anniversary Survey Report: Public Opinion Trends

Public Opinions on Social Security | National Academy of Social Insurance

Social Security

Does popping the cap on upper level income earners mean they get more benefits?
 
I imagine it would, but it's not a situation where you get back what you put in, meaning Big Gub still comes out on the winning side.
 
I imagine it would, but it's not a situation where you get back what you put in, meaning Big Gub still comes out on the winning side.

no, people are kept out of poverty. we all win. and increasing the cap should NOT result in higher benefits.
 
no, people are kept out of poverty. we all win. and increasing the cap should NOT result in higher benefits.

Why is that, that is the way the system was set up, now you want to change that and further redistribute wealth. I'll bet if you had your way, everyone would have the same level of income even if you did not work.
 
Those already on SS and Medicaid, etc. have no reason to worry for themselves, do they?

No one, repeat no one, on Social Security needs to worry that their benefits will be cut -- e.v.e.r. That is never going to happen. Democratic fearmongers would like the senior constituency to believe otherwise, but that is absolutely the worst kind of manipulation.

Medicaid? That one's not sacred. And certainly needs to be reviewed from the standpoint of who is eligible, how much is paid, what services are covered, and rooting out fraud at every level.
 
liblady said:
no, people are kept out of poverty. we all win. and increasing the cap should NOT result in higher benefits.

YOU CANNOT ELIMINATE POVERTY! God...

Well, I guess you can - if you're a socialist/syndicalist. Are you?
 
YOU CANNOT ELIMINATE POVERTY! God...

Well, I guess you can - if you're a socialist/syndicalist. Are you?

stop screaming at me....i know it can't be eliminated. it can, however, be ameliorated.
 
I imagine it would, but it's not a situation where you get back what you put in, meaning Big Gub still comes out on the winning side.

What are you talking about? Do you honestly believe people get short-shrifted?

Example: Tom and his employer have paid $115,000 into the Social Security System. He receives $1800 a month. He's 65 years old. In 5 years 4 months he will have received every dime contributed on his behalf. His life expectancy is 18.4 years. Assuming he lives to his life expectancy, he will receive $337,440 in benefits and have virtually free healthcare each and every year.

Big Gub comes out on the winning side? No. Taxpayers get screwed. Nobody wins.
 
MaggieD said:
What are you talking about? Do you honestly believe people get short-shrifted?

Example: Tom and his employer have paid $115,000 into the Social Security System. He receives $1800 a month. He's 65 years old. In 5 years 4 months he will have received every dime contributed on his behalf. His life expectancy is 18.4 years. Assuming he lives to his life expectancy, he will receive $337,440 in benefits and have virtually free healthcare each and every year.

Big Gub comes out on the winning side? No. Taxpayers get screwed. Nobody wins.

With the modified rate of return given Social Security, you'd be better off putting it in a low-interest savings account and leaving it to rot, let alone any sort of rational investment.
 
liblady said:
stop screaming at me....i know it can't be eliminated. it can, however, be ameliorated.

I'm an inch away from rehashing the statistics on what necessities and luxuries are afforded to those in "poverty". Yeah, they're doing okay for themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom