• 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!

Bloomberg unveils plans for Americans’ Social Security, retirement savings

Chomsky

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
85,622
Reaction score
72,334
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Mike Bloomberg released plans to shore up Americans’ retirement on Sunday, promising to increase Social Security retirement benefits and create a government-backed savings plan for workers at all income levels.

“Americans who have worked for decades deserve the opportunity to retire without facing constant financial pressure, and, as president, I will strengthen Social Security to allow seniors to do just that,” Bloomberg, who is a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a statement.
Click to expand...

In his announcement, Bloomberg focused on President Donald Trump’s record on the issue.

“When he was running for office, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, and yet as president he’s proposed cuts,” Bloomberg said. “When I’m in the White House, I will keep my word to seniors and to the American people.”
Click to expand...

Source: (CNBC) Bloomberg unveils plans for Americans’ Social Security, retirement savings

Upon reflection, I think this is an interesting tact by Bloomberg. I also think it might be a winner on multiple fronts. Yes - shoring-up Social Security is a common Democratic Party support element, just as the Republican Party (and Trump seemingly) support curtailing the program. The interesting aspect of Bloomberg's ploy here, is that he is espousing a Democratic Party principle as a person who has a great deal of gravitas as a highly successful capitalist - he is not Bernie or Warren.

Over the years I've seen some ideas that otherwise might be acceptable or even desired by some in Red America become politically demonized by the Republican politicos and Republican media, resulting in a subsequent slide of approval among the base Republican voters. We saw this "Republican media" effect a few years ago when the new healthcare law was summarized for Americans, and polling presented the law under two naming conventions - "Obama Care" and "The Affordable Care Act". After the programs were explained, the former naming convention always polled substantively lower then the latter, especially among Red demographics - even though they were the same program!

Social Security recipients obviously are primarily those of retirement age (3 of 4 recipients), with retirees voting at a disproportionately higher level than the general population. In addition, the 25% of Social Security recipients on Social Security Disability have a higher statistical preponderance in Southern Red states, particularly in the Southeastern United States. And finally, approximately 1 in 5 Americans receive Social Security benefits.

Given the stats above, and Bloomberg's gravitas as a capitalist, does Bloomberg have viable angle of attack here?
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (CNBC) Bloomberg unveils plans for Americans’ Social Security, retirement savings

Upon reflection, I think this is an interesting tact by Bloomberg. I also think it might be a winner on multiple fronts. Yes - shoring-up Social Security is a common Democratic Party support element, just as the Republican Party (and Trump seemingly) support curtailing the program. The interesting aspect of Bloomberg's ploy here, is that he is espousing a Democratic Party principle as a person who has a great deal of gravitas as a highly successful capitalist - he is not Bernie or Warren.

Over the years I've seen some ideas that otherwise might be acceptable or even desired by some in Red America become politically demonized by the Republican politicos and Republican media, resulting in a subsequent slide of approval among the base Republican voters. We saw this "Republican media" effect a few years ago when the new healthcare law was summarized for Americans, and polling presented the law under two naming conventions - "Obama Care" and "The Affordable Care Act". After the programs were explained, the former naming convention always polled substantively lower then the latter, especially among Red demographics - even though they were the same program!

Social Security recipients obviously are primarily those of retirement age (3 of 4 recipients), with retirees voting at a disproportionately higher level than the general population. In addition, the 25% of Social Security recipients on Social Security Disability have a higher statistical preponderance in Southern Red states, particularly in the Southeastern United States. And finally, approximately 1 in 5 Americans receive Social Security benefits.

Given the stats above, and Bloomberg's gravitas as a capitalist, does Bloomberg have viable angle of attack here?
Click to expand...

I’d say that carpet bombing the airwaves with countless millions of your own dollars seems to be a pretty viable angle of attack. Everybody just needs to do that.

Anyway, being serious, sure, it’s a viable angle of attack in that Trump created an opening for him to take literally the easiest and least dangerous way to set him apart from trump. Protect social security? Social security has been baked into the cake for nearly a hundred years. He can support a socialist policy and remain the least socialist candidate in the running.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Source: (CNBC) Bloomberg unveils plans for Americans’ Social Security, retirement savings

Upon reflection, I think this is an interesting tact by Bloomberg. I also think it might be a winner on multiple fronts. Yes - shoring-up Social Security is a common Democratic Party support element, just as the Republican Party (and Trump seemingly) support curtailing the program. The interesting aspect of Bloomberg's ploy here, is that he is espousing a Democratic Party principle as a person who has a great deal of gravitas as a highly successful capitalist - he is not Bernie or Warren.

Over the years I've seen some ideas that otherwise might be acceptable or even desired by some in Red America become politically demonized by the Republican politicos and Republican media, resulting in a subsequent slide of approval among the base Republican voters. We saw this "Republican media" effect a few years ago when the new healthcare law was summarized for Americans, and polling presented the law under two naming conventions - "Obama Care" and "The Affordable Care Act". After the programs were explained, the former naming convention always polled substantively lower then the latter, especially among Red demographics - even though they were the same program!

Social Security recipients obviously are primarily those of retirement age (3 of 4 recipients), with retirees voting at a disproportionately higher level than the general population. In addition, the 25% of Social Security recipients on Social Security Disability have a higher statistical preponderance in Southern Red states, particularly in the Southeastern United States. And finally, approximately 1 in 5 Americans receive Social Security benefits.

Given the stats above, and Bloomberg's gravitas as a capitalist, does Bloomberg have viable angle of attack here?
Click to expand...

Probably not for a couple reasons. He doesn't say how he will pay for the increased benefits. The only real solution is to increase withholdings so he is being coy in not disclosing that. Social Security, by law, has to be self-funding. Second, while his working poor access to retirement sounds peachy, a lot of working poor people are not going to have the discretionary income (or willingness) to contribute to begin with even if there are matching government funds. Related, government "low risk" funds will probably not be able to do more than keep pace with inflation. Obama proposed this but people would be buying treasuries with the money which are piss poor returns compared to many funds. In short, there is nothing new to see here and people are more worried about financial concerns that are clear and present in their lives, not paying the electric bill 30-50 years from now.
 
Cardinal said:
I’d say that carpet bombing the airwaves with countless millions of your own dollars seems to be a pretty viable angle of attack. Everybody just needs to do that.

Anyway, being serious, sure, it’s a viable angle of attack in that Trump created an opening for him to take literally the easiest and least dangerous way to set him apart from trump. Protect social security? Social security has been baked into the cake for nearly a hundred years. He can support a socialist policy and remain the least socialist candidate in the running.
Click to expand...
What initially jumped-out at me, was the thought that Bloomberg can present reasonable social programs to the Indie & Right electorate with a capitalist's gravitas, whereas other Dems can more easily be attacked as "Socialist" or some other disparaging moniker that does not address the merits of said programs.

Trump & the GOP can spout-off "Socialists!", "Liberals!", etc., in response to many Dems nominees and their programs. But, I don't see that working against Bloomberg. Especially, if he gets on a debate stage and espouses his economic success (specifically) in relation to Trump's. Trump & the GOP have spent a solid year building-up the meme "Democrat Socialists", and Bloomberg would set them back to zero.
 
Chomsky said:
What initially jumped-out at me, was the thought that Bloomberg can present reasonable social programs to the Indie & Right electorate with a capitalist's gravitas, whereas other Dems can more easily be attacked as "Socialist" or some other disparaging moniker that does not address the merits of said programs.

Trump & the GOP can spout-off "Socialists!", "Liberals!", etc., in response to many Dems nominees and their programs. But, I don't see that working against Bloomberg. Especially, if he gets on a debate stage and espouses his economic success (specifically) in relation to Trump's. Trump & the GOP have spent a solid year building-up the meme "Democrat Socialists", and Bloomberg would set them back to zero.
Click to expand...

Trust me. If he’s the nominee, republicans will call him a socialist.
 
Drawdown said:
Probably not for a couple reasons. He doesn't say how he will pay for the increased benefits. The only real solution is to increase withholdings so he is being coy in not disclosing that. Social Security, by law, has to be self-funding. Second, while his working poor access to retirement sounds peachy, a lot of working poor people are not going to have the discretionary income (or willingness) to contribute to begin with even if there are matching government funds. Related, government "low risk" funds will probably not be able to do more than keep pace with inflation. Obama proposed this but people would be buying treasuries with the money which are piss poor returns compared to many funds. In short, there is nothing new to see here and people are more worried about financial concerns that are clear and present in their lives, not paying the electric bill 30-50 years from now.
Click to expand...
You make excellent specific points here. I too noticed Bloomberg did not specify funding. But my focus is on the higher-level political effect. Some may indeed delve as deeply as you have here, but I suspect they're in the minority of the electorate.

Just as the Republicans gained great traction with "death panels" and "throwing granny over the cliff", I believe Bloomberg could gain traction with "saving social security from Trump" - making it an election issue.
 
Cardinal said:
Trust me. If he’s the nominee, republicans will call him a socialist.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But it will be harder to gain traction - than say - with Bernie. And Bloomberg can always respond by espousing his highly extremely successful record as a capitalist, in direct contrast to Trump's dismal failures.

(you may have guessed I've recently warmed-up to Bloomberg as nominee)
 
Chomsky said:
You make excellent specific points here. I too noticed Bloomberg did not specify funding. But my focus is on the higher-level political effect. Some may indeed delve as deeply as you have here, but I suspect they're in the minority of the electorate.

Just as the Republicans gained great traction with "death panels" and "throwing granny over the cliff", I believe Bloomberg could gain traction with "saving social security from Trump" - making it an election issue.
Click to expand...

He can make it an issue if he so desires but I doubt it would help him in the general election. People who respond to throwing Granny off a cliff probably secretly see disability as a scam anyway because they 1) have known someone who they thought deserved it and couldn't get it and/or 2) know someone they think isn't really disabled who is getting it.

If he really wanted to come up with something innovative and spark a real discussion, then he should go with a government run no fee brokerage service for all taxpayers to which the government would contribute however much annually based on the person's tax filings and the amount contributed by the government would have to sit at least Y number of years before it could be withdrawn. The poor are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the markets if you want to address the rich are getting richer issue.
 
Bernie is going after the youth vote. Traditionally, young people would rather stay home and play video games than get out and vote.

Bloomberg is going after the old people vote. Old people always vote.

Sounds like Bloomberg is on the right track.
 
swing_voter said:
Bernie is going after the youth vote. Traditionally, young people would rather stay home and play video games than get out and vote.

Bloomberg is going after the old people vote. Old people always vote.

Sounds like Bloomberg is on the right track.
Click to expand...

My 17 year old has been canvassing and contacting people for Bernie for two months. We just spent two days in fayetteville , Ark. so he could go out and meet folks to convince them to vote fer Bernie.He will be 18 in May and can vote this year. I bought him and Apple 7 and a gaming computer and yet he left them alone to work the last two days. Don't underestimate the youth.
 
let me guess : he'll shore it up by making coke cost ten bucks a can.
 
What a lot of people probably don't want to admit is that Congress needs to pass the laws to put Bloomberg's ideas into practice. Just as Congress didn't pass a lot of stuff that Bush wanted, that Obama wanted, that Trump wants...it is a certainty that Congress won't pass what Bloomberg wants.
 
Drawdown said:
He can make it an issue if he so desires but I doubt it would help him in the general election. People who respond to throwing Granny off a cliff probably secretly see disability as a scam anyway because they 1) have known someone who they thought deserved it and couldn't get it and/or 2) know someone they think isn't really disabled who is getting it.
Click to expand...
Of that, I'm not sure. The tenets of the ACA generally resonate well enough with the electorate. And as I described in my OP, when billed as the "Affordable Care Act" it polled reasonably well. When billed as "ObamaCare", it polled substantively worse. So there is more at play, than what you suggest.

If he really wanted to come up with something innovative and spark a real discussion, then he should go with a government run no fee brokerage service for all taxpayers to which the government would contribute however much annually based on the person's tax filings and the amount contributed by the government would have to sit at least Y number of years before it could be withdrawn. The poor are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the markets if you want to address the rich are getting richer issue.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right here in economic terms. But then you are subjecting the citizens to a tax that must be invested in the private equities market. No different that a tax to force people into spending on a private product through the ACA, that being health private insurance. I'm against both of those on principle and in Constitutional terms (despite Robert's ruling).

However, your thrust here is absolutely right - a SS program thrown into the private equity markets should statistically do better. Of course if an event like a great depression occurs, that changes.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (CNBC) Bloomberg unveils plans for Americans’ Social Security, retirement savings

Upon reflection, I think this is an interesting tact by Bloomberg. I also think it might be a winner on multiple fronts. Yes - shoring-up Social Security is a common Democratic Party support element, just as the Republican Party (and Trump seemingly) support curtailing the program. The interesting aspect of Bloomberg's ploy here, is that he is espousing a Democratic Party principle as a person who has a great deal of gravitas as a highly successful capitalist - he is not Bernie or Warren.

Over the years I've seen some ideas that otherwise might be acceptable or even desired by some in Red America become politically demonized by the Republican politicos and Republican media, resulting in a subsequent slide of approval among the base Republican voters. We saw this "Republican media" effect a few years ago when the new healthcare law was summarized for Americans, and polling presented the law under two naming conventions - "Obama Care" and "The Affordable Care Act". After the programs were explained, the former naming convention always polled substantively lower then the latter, especially among Red demographics - even though they were the same program!

Social Security recipients obviously are primarily those of retirement age (3 of 4 recipients), with retirees voting at a disproportionately higher level than the general population. In addition, the 25% of Social Security recipients on Social Security Disability have a higher statistical preponderance in Southern Red states, particularly in the Southeastern United States. And finally, approximately 1 in 5 Americans receive Social Security benefits.

Given the stats above, and Bloomberg's gravitas as a capitalist, does Bloomberg have viable angle of attack here?
Click to expand...

So far his proposal is like the rest, a half assed assessment and an increase in benefits when the fund for SS is depleting itself at the current levels.(Which is why there are many new immigrants to help pay the bill.)
 
Mycroft said:
What a lot of people probably don't want to admit is that Congress needs to pass the laws to put Bloomberg's ideas into practice. Just as Congress didn't pass a lot of stuff that Bush wanted, that Obama wanted, that Trump wants...it is a certainty that Congress won't pass what Bloomberg wants.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But my focus was on politics, specifically the politics of the election, not that your contribution wasn't appreciated - it was.
 
swing_voter said:
Bernie is going after the youth vote. Traditionally, young people would rather stay home and play video games than get out and vote.

Bloomberg is going after the old people vote. Old people always vote.

Sounds like Bloomberg is on the right track.
Click to expand...
You know, in succinct terms I think you've gotten to the gist of it! :mrgreen:
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (CNBC) Bloomberg unveils plans for Americans’ Social Security, retirement savings

Upon reflection, I think this is an interesting tact by Bloomberg. I also think it might be a winner on multiple fronts. Yes - shoring-up Social Security is a common Democratic Party support element, just as the Republican Party (and Trump seemingly) support curtailing the program. The interesting aspect of Bloomberg's ploy here, is that he is espousing a Democratic Party principle as a person who has a great deal of gravitas as a highly successful capitalist - he is not Bernie or Warren.

Over the years I've seen some ideas that otherwise might be acceptable or even desired by some in Red America become politically demonized by the Republican politicos and Republican media, resulting in a subsequent slide of approval among the base Republican voters. We saw this "Republican media" effect a few years ago when the new healthcare law was summarized for Americans, and polling presented the law under two naming conventions - "Obama Care" and "The Affordable Care Act". After the programs were explained, the former naming convention always polled substantively lower then the latter, especially among Red demographics - even though they were the same program!

Social Security recipients obviously are primarily those of retirement age (3 of 4 recipients), with retirees voting at a disproportionately higher level than the general population. In addition, the 25% of Social Security recipients on Social Security Disability have a higher statistical preponderance in Southern Red states, particularly in the Southeastern United States. And finally, approximately 1 in 5 Americans receive Social Security benefits.

Given the stats above, and Bloomberg's gravitas as a capitalist, does Bloomberg have viable angle of attack here?
Click to expand...

Damn that boy wants to give more power to the government through public retirement funds. Slick.
 
Moonglow said:
So far his proposal is like the rest, a half assed assessment and an increase in benefits when the fund for SS is depleting itself at the current levels.(Which is why there are many new immigrants to help pay the bill.)
Click to expand...
You might be right in detail. But my OP's thrust was in the higher-level political ramifications. Is this a good ploy to use to go after Trump? I believe it may.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Damn that boy wants to give more power to the government through public retirement funds. Slick.
Click to expand...
Actually, yes. And Trump seems to recently be wanting to curtail the program. That's the political calculus we're trying to examine.
 
Chomsky said:
Of that, I'm not sure. The tenets of the ACA generally resonate well enough with the electorate. And as I described in my OP, when billed as the "Affordable Care Act" it polled reasonably well. When billed as "ObamaCare", it polled substantively worse. So there is more at play, than what you suggest.

Yes, you are right here in economic terms. But then you are subjecting the citizens to a tax that must be invested in the private equities market. No different that a tax to force people into spending on a private product through the ACA, that being health private insurance. I'm against both of those on principle and in Constitutional terms (despite Robert's ruling).

However, your thrust here is absolutely right - a SS program thrown into the private equity markets should statistically do better. Of course if an event like a great depression occurs, that changes.
Click to expand...

The government using its own money to contribute to a person's brokerage account wouldn't be a tax. It would be a restricted benefit. Nobody would be forced to put any of their own money into what I am talking about. They just could if they wanted to. Even $7-9 fees on transfers at online brokerages discourage poor people from investing if they want to as they may not have a lot to do it with at once and therefore would be losing money right of the bat if say they only had $30 to invest this week. that stock would have to have 25% growth before they even broke even.
 
Chomsky said:
You might be right in detail. But my OP's thrust was in the higher-level political ramifications. Is this a good ploy to use to go after Trump? I believe it may.
Click to expand...

I have very serious doubts because the Trumpets are seriously partisan and lacking in the ability to decipher fact from fiction.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (CNBC) Bloomberg unveils plans for Americans’ Social Security, retirement savings

Upon reflection, I think this is an interesting tact by Bloomberg. I also think it might be a winner on multiple fronts. Yes - shoring-up Social Security is a common Democratic Party support element, just as the Republican Party (and Trump seemingly) support curtailing the program. The interesting aspect of Bloomberg's ploy here, is that he is espousing a Democratic Party principle as a person who has a great deal of gravitas as a highly successful capitalist - he is not Bernie or Warren.

Over the years I've seen some ideas that otherwise might be acceptable or even desired by some in Red America become politically demonized by the Republican politicos and Republican media, resulting in a subsequent slide of approval among the base Republican voters. We saw this "Republican media" effect a few years ago when the new healthcare law was summarized for Americans, and polling presented the law under two naming conventions - "Obama Care" and "The Affordable Care Act". After the programs were explained, the former naming convention always polled substantively lower then the latter, especially among Red demographics - even though they were the same program!

Social Security recipients obviously are primarily those of retirement age (3 of 4 recipients), with retirees voting at a disproportionately higher level than the general population. In addition, the 25% of Social Security recipients on Social Security Disability have a higher statistical preponderance in Southern Red states, particularly in the Southeastern United States. And finally, approximately 1 in 5 Americans receive Social Security benefits.

Given the stats above, and Bloomberg's gravitas as a capitalist, does Bloomberg have viable angle of attack here?
Click to expand...

Tack.

Bloombag = Reptilian fascist
 
Drawdown said:
He can make it an issue if he so desires but I doubt it would help him in the general election. People who respond to throwing Granny off a cliff probably secretly see disability as a scam anyway because they 1) have known someone who they thought deserved it and couldn't get it and/or 2) know someone they think isn't really disabled who is getting it.

If he really wanted to come up with something innovative and spark a real discussion, then he should go with a government run no fee brokerage service for all taxpayers to which the government would contribute however much annually based on the person's tax filings and the amount contributed by the government would have to sit at least Y number of years before it could be withdrawn. The poor are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the markets if you want to address the rich are getting richer issue.
Click to expand...

What if, the Poor could obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States and were able to purchase some form of insurance on the open market at a reasonable cost?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom