• 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

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...

McGovern turned out the youth vote, we see how that turned out for him.
 
eman623 said:
SS is unsustainable and the benefits should be reduced. You can either throw Granny off the cliff or the grandkids.
Click to expand...

Actually SS is very sustainable, in fact if the fixes were done a decade ago we wouldn't be having this discussion. Capping SS tax on wages is flawed, not taxing capital gains is flawed, pretending it is unfixable is flawed.

Right now, and the GOP has known for decades, we are paying off a YUGE retiree bubble caused by the baby boomers aging out. It isn't a permanent condition. The GOP wants everyone to believe the YUGE retiree surge will continue but also refuses to increase any tax to carry us through it.

Let's throw neither off the cliff and be realistic about fixes the majority of Americans want as they want social security to continue and will vote for it to continue...

democracy and all that... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Actually SS is very sustainable, in fact if the fixes were done a decade ago we wouldn't be having this discussion. Capping SS tax on wages is flawed, not taxing capital gains is flawed, pretending it is unfixable is flawed.

Right now, and the GOP has known for decades, we are paying off a YUGE retiree bubble caused by the baby boomers aging out. It isn't a permanent condition. The GOP wants everyone to believe the YUGE retiree surge will continue but also refuses to increase any tax to carry us through it.

Let's throw neither off the cliff and be realistic about fixes the majority of Americans want as they want social security to continue and will vote for it to continue...

democracy and all that... :peace
Click to expand...

We cap the SS tax because we cap the SS payout. SS is not a wealth transfer program from rich to poor.

And the fact remains that we DIDN'T do any fixes a decade ago. We probably won't do any fixes now. Ergo, SS is, in its current state, unsustainable.

SS used to be a cash cow for the federal government. It stole the extra SS funds and traded them for IOUs. Those IOUs are coming due now and paying back SS will consume ever larger portions of the general budget. That will nor be allowed to go on for very long. Mark me.
 
The best fix for SS is to keep your 401K and IRA fully funded.
 
CaughtInThe said:
this guy can beat Trump and the rest are gonna get their asses kicked.

He can save us from Trump and company selling off the commons, killing or devaluing all the social net programs and 60 years of Trump judges.

It's gonna be very interesting to watch Democrats and how much they're gonna stick to their purity test.
Click to expand...

I won't vote for our own Trump if he wins the nomination. I'll keep the top of the ticket blank. Oligarchy isn't the answer and the last thing the democratic party needs to do right now is sell out to a republican because of their fear of Trump.
 
eman623 said:
We cap the SS tax because we cap the SS payout. SS is not a wealth transfer program from rich to poor. And the fact remains that we DIDN'T do any fixes a decade ago. We probably won't do any fixes now. Ergo, SS is, in its current state, unsustainable. SS used to be a cash cow for the federal government. It stole the extra SS funds and traded them for IOUs. Those IOUs are coming due now and paying back SS will consume ever larger portions of the general budget. That will nor be allowed to go on for very long. Mark me.
Click to expand...

'We' didn't cap SS tax, power brokers did. I'd say SSI is a social safety net first and foremost and a cap on payouts isn't going to hurt a single rich, older American. (FYI medicare payroll taxes are NOT capped)

'In it's current state', a new twist to your argument, but again Americans are not going to let the rabid right sink Social Security. The 'stolen' cash deflection. The REAL reason Social Security is in a TEMPORARY bind is a YUGE increase in births after WWII, a hopefully once in forever event. These baby boomer retirees will pass.

Now you want to blame 'the government', but a series of conservative governments have refused to pay back SSI and instead continue to cut taxes to the wealthiest. The wealth transfer is ongoing and not in the direction you claim.

The American tax payer will demand Social Security be fixed and will vote that way.... Mark me... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
'We' didn't cap SS tax, power brokers did. I'd say SSI is a social safety net first and foremost and a cap on payouts isn't going to hurt a single rich, older American. (FYI medicare payroll taxes are NOT capped)

'In it's current state', a new twist to your argument, but again Americans are not going to let the rabid right sink Social Security. The 'stolen' cash deflection. The REAL reason Social Security is in a TEMPORARY bind is a YUGE increase in births after WWII, a hopefully once in forever event. These baby boomer retirees will pass.

Now you want to blame 'the government', but a series of conservative governments have refused to pay back SSI and instead continue to cut taxes to the wealthiest. The wealth transfer is ongoing and not in the direction you claim.

The American tax payer will demand Social Security be fixed and will vote that way.... Mark me... :peace
Click to expand...

Power brokers? "We" as in "we the people", as expressed by the legislature and president capped the SS tax and payouts. I have no interest in what you think will hurt rich, older Americans. You just want to take their money and you justify it with the irrelevant "it won't hurt them."

It's not the rabid right that's going to sink SS. It's the laws of mathematics. In fact, you go out of your way to blame the right when administrations and Congresses both right and left have kicked this particular can down the road for decades. It's partisan hacks like you that are what's killing SS.

The fix for SS is simple. Increase taxes, cut spending.
 
Seen it.

 
danielpalos said:
You are being disingenuous since we use fiat money and food stamps in our economy. Those with the Best and Greatest ability could do so conveniently not merely easily-we have convenience stores under Capitalism not easy stores under truer forms of socialism.
Click to expand...

you lefties always say its easy for someone else to fund your collectivist nonsense. How about you all start paying for the government programs you claim are so good. And how about using normal conversational language rather than what appears to be bot speak?
 
ElChupacabra said:
In an odd way it's representative of our values. We praise those who have the wealth and power to get things done, and here is someone with those two things doing precisely that. I'm not one who praises wealth in this way, so I see problems with ushering in this model of the wealthy injecting loads of money into elections. It's one of the reasons I didn't think the Citizens United decision was a good one either.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

Although I think Citizens United was just the capstone on a structure built of decisions which led us here.
 
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...

For a long time SS was able to meet its obligations from current review, e.g. FICA taxes AND generate an excess that was "lent" to the government. They passed revenue neutrality a while back but met obligations with a mixture of current revenue plus the interest earned from those government loans. SS Trustees have now said that in the next year or two they'll have to start redeeming the bonds they hold in the "SS Trust Fund" as well to continue benefits at the current level. The currently project that in 15-20 years the Trust Fund will be depleted and benefits will have to be reduced 20-25%
 
Sooooooo..... is anyone going to talk about Doomberg's comments on stopping and frisking every black guy in New York, comments about black and Latino men not knowing how to behave inside the workplace, or his comments about how farming is simple and how he implies farmers are dumb hicks but somehow it takes someone highly intelligent to be in politics?... No?.... Okay just checkin'.
 
TurtleDude said:
you lefties always say its easy for someone else to fund your collectivist nonsense. How about you all start paying for the government programs you claim are so good. And how about using normal conversational language rather than what appears to be bot speak?
Click to expand...

lol. it is your bot hearing; AI simply hasn't advanced enough.
 
cpwill said:
Affordability isn't just a matter of "whether we want to", it also eventually becomes a "whether we can". When you eat your seed corn, you get less crop.
Click to expand...

Yep. Though the budgeting within our means boat has sailed a while ago. In fairness though, it is a major roadblock even if the direction is to cut from other parts of the budget.
 
Social Security is the biggest rip off in history. It is only a means for the government to squeeze another tax out of the tax payer.

Social Security discriminates against blacks because they don't live as long as other races.
Social Security discriminates against men because they don't live as long a women.
Millions of people pay into it for decades and never collect a dime because they die before reaching SS age.
Unlike a 401K or other retirement account the money you pay in it is not yours.
The SSA admits to about 10 billion in fraud annually but is doing nothing to stop it.
All SS money is invested in Treasury Securities which pay almost noting. It is nothing more than taking money from you and giving it to the government.
Social Security needs three working people to pay the benefits for each retired person. With people living longer this is not obtainable.

The AARP says SS will become insolvent in 2035. At that time they will only be able to pay about 80% of their commitment. SS now costs about $1.1 trillion annually. That is not something that can be replaced by squeezing a few more bucks out of the rich.
 
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...

Of course an advantage to being a senior citizen is knowing they are lying to get your vote. Where in the line of promises does more SS fit in Green New Deal, getting rid of fossil fuels (never mind our plastic world comes from petroleum), Medicare for all, with a bonus of instant amnesty for anyone who pole vaults into our country... what have I left out? Misdemeanor anarchy taking it nation wide using San Francisco and New York as models with un-affordable housing in decent areas, and your states run by big money and empty headed volunteers.

Spare me.

The only up side is if he picks Hillary as V.P. maybe they will drain the Chinese treasury into the Clinton Foundation. Oh, wait. Bloomberg is a multi nationalist who is very chummy with Beijing and things exporting American jobs is just swell. If we get the coronavirus here, guess what? Face masks are make in China, and they won't share. (Maybe Bloomberg owns a face mask factory over there)
 
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...

He presents no plan. He says he will give more to seniors, refusing to state how much or where the money is going to come from. Notice he did NOT say "tax ME (the super rich millionaires) more." The only way that has been discussed is by raising payroll taxes - meaning take more money from lower and middle income working people.

Isn't Bloomberg - the 12 richest person on earth - generous? He is going to take money via taxes out of the paychecks of people working at McDonalds so he can brag HE is giving more to senior citizens - including billionaire senior citizens like himself. He can't stand it that he doesn't get money from everyone for which he is nearly starving only being the 12 richest man alive. To get by he needs to be at least the 3rd richest man alive - but that probably is too much of a compromise.
 
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...


Bloomberg has no plan. It is a promise to think about the issue. Read the plan. The only thing that he advocates is changing the CPI to CPI-e. That will give bigger checks to people like President Bloomberg. It isn't clear that his minimum benefit is going to be a change to SSI or whether it is a new Social Security benefit. There is no gravitas. It is a collection of chicken-pot politics
.
 
notquiteright said:
'We' didn't cap SS tax, power brokers did. I'd say SSI is a social safety net first and foremost and a cap on payouts isn't going to hurt a single rich, older American. (FYI medicare payroll taxes are NOT capped)

'In it's current state', a new twist to your argument, but again Americans are not going to let the rabid right sink Social Security. The 'stolen' cash deflection. The REAL reason Social Security is in a TEMPORARY bind is a YUGE increase in births after WWII, a hopefully once in forever event. These baby boomer retirees will pass.

Now you want to blame 'the government', but a series of conservative governments have refused to pay back SSI and instead continue to cut taxes to the wealthiest. The wealth transfer is ongoing and not in the direction you claim.

The American tax payer will demand Social Security be fixed and will vote that way.... Mark me... :peace
Click to expand...

The American tax payer is going to wake the meaning of the commas and zeros in these numbers and they are going to demand something else. Part of the awakening will be when they are told (yet again) this is not a TEMPORARY problem. The trustees report today that the shortfalls grow into eternity. This is why the shortfall grows every year.
 
The time to deal with Boomer retirements was 35 years ago, but we could not manage.

It is too late now, and it looks like the Depression is coming fast...this does not matter except as a vote buying exercise.
 
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 think I must be getting more radical or something, I see "gravitas as a capitalist" and I'm thinking "eww, get it away from me!"
 
chuckiechan said:
Of course an advantage to being a senior citizen is knowing they are lying to get your vote. Where in the line of promises does more SS fit in Green New Deal, getting rid of fossil fuels (never mind our plastic world comes from petroleum), Medicare for all, with a bonus of instant amnesty for anyone who pole vaults into our country... what have I left out? Misdemeanor anarchy taking it nation wide using San Francisco and New York as models with un-affordable housing in decent areas, and your states run by big money and empty headed volunteers.

Spare me.

The only up side is if he picks Hillary as V.P. maybe they will drain the Chinese treasury into the Clinton Foundation. Oh, wait. Bloomberg is a multi nationalist who is very chummy with Beijing and things exporting American jobs is just swell. If we get the coronavirus here, guess what? Face masks are make in China, and they won't share. (Maybe Bloomberg owns a face mask factory over there)
Click to expand...
But you've missed my point. I wasn't speaking to this being a workable plan, but rather as to whether it's a good political tactic to use against Trump? I think it may.
 
The Mark said:
I think I must be getting more radical or something, I see "gravitas as a capitalist" and I'm thinking "eww, get it away from me!"
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that line of attack strikes right at Trump's heart. That's the idea - strike down your opponent's central strength, his raison d'etre. In this case, Trump's (so called) economic chops. For Bloomberg, this shouldn't be too hard to do.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
Bloomberg has no plan. It is a promise to think about the issue. Read the plan. The only thing that he advocates is changing the CPI to CPI-e. That will give bigger checks to people like President Bloomberg. It isn't clear that his minimum benefit is going to be a change to SSI or whether it is a new Social Security benefit. There is no gravitas. It is a collection of chicken-pot politics
.
Click to expand...
It's not about a plan. It's about a political line of attack, and whether it's a good one. I think it might be.
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, but that line of attack strikes right at Trump's heart. That's the idea - strike down your opponent's central strength, his raison d'etre. In this case, Trump's (so called) economic chops. For Bloomberg, this shouldn't be too hard to do.
Click to expand...
That's one possible positive in a sea of negatives.

Because it's for damned sure that Trump will rail against Bloomberg's past and recent actions and statements, saying that he (Bloomberg) is racist, sexist, transphobic, looks down on poor people, has his lawyers threaten journalists, and a slew of other things.

Without a hint of irony.

The the worst part of it is Trump will be at least partially right to attack Bloomberg on those things, and counters of "you do it too" will just bounce off Trump's supporter's mind shields.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom