• 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!

Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a future Am

Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

lpast said:
Paul Ryan proposed a 25% tax cut for the richest americans...corporations were given a tax cut by reagan ...from 46% down to 34%
Click to expand...

Ryan cut the rates; but then got rid of the loopholes in order to keep the whole thing revenue neutral. Have your taxes really gone down if you're still paying in the same amount (or, in some cases; more)?
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

EarlzP said:
"Dude"
Click to expand...

Dude :D


Dude?



Duuude. :peace



The republicans and tea baggers apparently can sell their constituents on things like President Obama's eligibility to run for President
Click to expand...

full stop. the Tea Party is not the same as the birthers. many birthers are probably tea partiers, but many of the 9/11 truthers were also democrats. that doesn't make Barack Obama a gibbering conspiracy theorist.

I doubt you are going to sell your Ponzi Wall Street Scheme again this quickly
Click to expand...

what wall street ponzi scheme?

Wall Street and the American economy were both on the verge of collapse when President Obama took office, your hero ex President Bush instead of taking care of the business of the United States had involved us in two wars going so far as to borrow money from the Chinese to finance his need to be a war president
Click to expand...

yup. and he screwed up the recession, too. lots of people forget that Bush started the bailouts and started the "stimulus". don't get me wrong, i'm in favor of his first term foriegn policy; but his second term economic policy was atrocious. then Obama got into office and did all the same dumb things he had done; but on crack.

Within a month of telling the American people that the state of our economy was strong our nations economy was on the edge of collapse
Click to expand...

that's what he gets for trusting the Fed. who also told us that the subprime market was "contained" right before Bear Stearns went up in flames.

Wall Street and the Bankers were bailed out using tax payer dollars
Click to expand...

the banks were. UAW was. wall street in general? not so much; which is why it tanked.

and now you think that people are going to trust Wall Street with their retirement
Click to expand...

wall street gives you a 99% chance of being just fine at retirement. for anyone below the age of 50, as it currently exists, social security has roughly a 2% chance of being fine at retirement. but i'll amend the proposition; at age 65, if you like, you can turn your private account back over to the government and go right back on the old system. how about that?

the average American will see that scheme for exactly what it is, a chance to pick the pockets of hard working Americans.
Click to expand...

:roll: the average American already invests in the market; that's what a 401(k), an IRA, the government's TSP, and pension plans are. Money that is invested in the market to allow people to retire.

Wall Street is nothing but a Ponzi Scheme
Click to expand...

again, if you have any evidence of this, i would like to see it. I would especially like to know who's running this scheme; you always gotta have an entity on top; who has us all fooled by making us think that there are actually things like "companies" and "factories" and "commodities" in America?

oh; those things actually exist? and your claim here is ludicrous - the kind of crap a particularly facetious marxist says after a particularly hard toke?

gotit.


$29 Billion Stimulus Package – Wall Street Bailout
The Federal Reserve stepped in to prevent the collapse of Bear Stearns (one of the world’s largest investment banks and brokerage firms) by guaranteeing $29 billion worth of potential losses in its battered portfolio. This provided enough economic stimulus for JP Morgan Chase to take over the beleaguered firm.

$200 Billion Stimulus Package – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailout
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (privately owned mortgage companies that are backed by the federal government) were about to fail, due to declining house prices and rising foreclosures. The Bush Administration stepped in with a $200 billion economic stimulus package and placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their $5 trillion in home loans in “temporary conservatorship,” to be supervised by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

September – November 2008
$150 Billion Stimulus Package – AIG Bailout
With the world’s largest insurance company in dire straits and 74 million clients at risk, the American government chipped in and gave AIG (American Insurance Group) $150 billion in a stimulus package that included: loans, purchase of toxic assets, and purchase of preferred shares.

October 2008
$700 Billion Stimulus Package – Banks Bailout
The Bush Administration, under the umbrella of the U.S. Treasury, committed $700 billion in economic stimulus money under TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). By many accounts, if this economic stimulus money hadn’t been injected, credit between banks would have frozen overnight, and not only the American economy, but also the global economy, would have seized up.

March 2009
$30 Billion Stimulus Package – AIG Bailout
The federal government intervened once again to help insurance giant AIG, this time in the form of a $30 billion loan from TARP funds. (See above in the September-November 2008 entry, for more information on other AIG bailouts.)

March 2009
$1 Trillion "Toxic Asset" Program – Banks Bailout
The Obama Administration launched a public-private economic stimulus venture (involving the U.S. Treasury and FDIC) to try to get toxic assets off the balance sheets of banks so that they can return to normal lending practicesMarch 2009.
Click to expand...

and you found free market advocates in opposition to every one of those. it was part of the political middle and the left of the day that supported those bailouts, not the political right. they objectively made "wall street" worse in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

lpast said:
Paul Ryan proposed a 25% tax cut for the richest americans...corporations were given a tax cut by reagan ...from 46% down to 34%
Click to expand...

Last time I looked Ryan is just a proposal that will not go into effect. Reagan was 35 years ago, please try better.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

cpwill said:
Dude :D


Dude?

full stop. the Tea Party is not the same as the birthers. many birthers are probably tea partiers, but many of the 9/11 truthers were also democrats. that doesn't make Barack Obama a gibbering conspiracy theorist.



what wall street ponzi scheme?



yup. and he screwed up the recession, too. lots of people forget that Bush started the bailouts and started the "stimulus". don't get me wrong, i'm in favor of his first term foriegn policy; but his second term economic policy was atrocious. then Obama got into office and did all the same dumb things he had done; but on crack.




that's what he gets for trusting the Fed. who also told us that the subprime market was "contained" right before Bear Stearns went up in flames.



the banks were. UAW was. wall street in general? not so much; which is why it tanked.



wall street gives you a 99% chance of being just fine at retirement. for anyone below the age of 50, as it currently exists, social security has roughly a 2% chance of being fine at retirement. but i'll amend the proposition; at age 65, if you like, you can turn your private account back over to the government and go right back on the old system. how about that?



:roll: the average American already invests in the market; that's what a 401(k), an IRA, the government's TSP, and pension plans are. Money that is invested in the market to allow people to retire.



again, if you have any evidence of this, i would like to see it. I would especially like to know who's running this scheme; you always gotta have an entity on top; who has us all fooled by making us think that there are actually things like "companies" and "factories" and "commodities" in America?

oh; those things actually exist? and your claim here is ludicrous - the kind of crap a particularly facetious marxist says after a particularly hard toke?

gotit.




and you found free market advocates in opposition to every one of those. it was part of the political middle and the left of the day that supported those bailouts, not the political right. they objectively made "wall street" worse in the long run.
Click to expand...

Duuude. :peace



The Bailout Was a Wealth Transfer Scheme

“This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt…
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

haymarket said:
that is ludicrous. If you popped the cap and everyone paid the same percentage of FICA from every dollar they earned, there would be enough SS money for another seven decades without any problems.
Click to expand...

In 2008, the additional SS tax of those with salaries and wages of 100,000 or more would have come to a total of 5,243,610,342. This is hardly enough to keep the SSI system solvent under the current expenditures of the SS system, much less to pay for the future expenditures. Data from the IRS is not available for 2009 or 2010, but it is likely that those numbers are smaller for both years. 2008 Tax Data
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

ggh said:
In 2008, the additional SS tax of those with salaries and wages of 100,000 or more would have come to a total of 5,243,610,342. This is hardly enough to keep the SSI system solvent under the current expenditures of the SS system, much less to pay for the future expenditures. Data from the IRS is not available for 2009 or 2010, but it is likely that those numbers are smaller for both years. 2008 Tax Data
Click to expand...

You are correct. But it seems to be an effective talking point that politicians will continue to use as long as there are people gullible enough to believe that is the magic wand to fix all the ills of social security.

Look to the 80s, the last time a real fix was put in place. caps did rise and the age to get social security was also increased. When politicians get serious about fixing this problem a similar solution will occur.

We might need to have a president who does more than vote present before we fix our economic woes.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

washunut said:
Last time I looked Ryan is just a proposal that will not go into effect. Reagan was 35 years ago, please try better.
Click to expand...

Please stop playing games, you asked me a question and I gave you a direct answer
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

lpast said:
Please stop playing games, you asked me a question and I gave you a direct answer
Click to expand...

A lot of peole give answers that does not mean they are correct or legitimate. What I tried to explain is that the Ryan plan is just that a plan or startpoint. I agree with little of it, but it will help move the discussion to some real fixes to our problems. We probably won't know any final proposed legislation for at least a year.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

EarlzP said:
Duuude. :peace



The Bailout Was a Wealth Transfer Scheme

“This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt…
Click to expand...

generally, I agree. what you are missing is that much of that wealth transfer went to the UAW, not to investors. Bondholders of GM in particular got screwed. and the American Taxpayer at large got and is getting screwed by the bailout of Fannie and Freddie.




None of which changes the fact that our entitlement system is unsustainable.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

ggh said:
In 2008, the additional SS tax of those with salaries and wages of 100,000 or more would have come to a total of 5,243,610,342. This is hardly enough to keep the SSI system solvent under the current expenditures of the SS system, much less to pay for the future expenditures. Data from the IRS is not available for 2009 or 2010, but it is likely that those numbers are smaller for both years. 2008 Tax Data
Click to expand...

yup.


There Aren't Enough Millionaires

...When it comes to the Scrooge McDuck set, the problem isn’t that they’re not rich enough, it’s that there aren’t enough rich — not enough to do what liberals want to do, anyway, which is to balance the budget by increasing taxes on them. Let’s deploy some always-suspect English-major math:

There are lots of liberal definitions of “rich.” When Pres. Barack Obama talks about the rich, he’s talking about people living in households with income of more than $250,000 or more, the rarefied caviar-shoveling stratum occupied by the likes of second-tier public-broadcasting executives, Boston cops, nurses, and the city manager of Lubbock, Texas (assuming somebody in her household earns the last $25,000 to carry her over the line). Club 250K isn’t all that exclusive, and most of its members aren’t the yachts-and-expensive-mistresses types.

Nonetheless, there aren’t that many of them. In fact, in 2006, the Census Bureau found only 2.2 million households earning more than $250,000. And most of those are closer to the Lubbock city manager than to Carlos Slim, income-wise. To jump from the 50th to the 51st percentile isn’t that tough; jumping from the 96th to the 97th takes a lot of schmundo. It’s lonely at the top.

But say we wanted to balance the budget by jacking up taxes on Club 250K. That’s a problem: The 2012 deficit is forecast to hit $1.1 trillion under Obama’s budget. (Thanks, Mr. President!) Spread that deficit over all the households in Club 250K and you have to jack up their taxes by an average of $500,000. Which you simply can’t do, since a lot of them don’t have $500,000 in income to seize: Most of them are making $250,000 to $450,000 and paying about half in taxes already. You can squeeze that goose all day, but that’s not going to make it push out a golden egg.

But like certain other exclusive clubs, Club 250K has an inner sanctum, a special club within the club, the champagne room of socioeconomic status. And that is Club 1: the million-dollar-a-year club. Not the millionaires’ club — lots of the people earning $1 million in any given year do not have $1 million in assets — but, still, a million a year, even in rapidly depreciating U.S. dollars, is not too shabby. But the trouble for liberals is, Club 1 is really, really exclusive: Only 0.2 percent of U.S. households have incomes that high, meaning that there’s only about 200,000 of them. And like Club 250K, Club 1 is bottom-heavy: There are a lot more $1 million men than there are $6 million men. And there are a whole heck of a lot more $6 million men than there are $60 million men.

You want to tax Club 1 to get rid of the deficit, you have to hit each of those 200,000 households with an average tax hike — not an average tax bill, but tax increase — of $6 million. And a lot of those Club 1 households don’t have $6 million in income to start with, much less $6 million left after the taxes they’re already paying.

Every time you raise the threshold for eating the rich, you get a much, much smaller serving of meat on the plate — but the deficit stays the same. The long division gets pretty ugly. You end up chasing a revenue will-o’-the-wisp....​
 
Last edited:
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

danarhea said:
Here is the way I see it - If Republicans gain enough control to eliminate Social Security, then they had better damn well give me the money back that they have been taking from me for almost 50 years. If they don't, then I can damn well guarantee that senior citizens, refusing to be floated out to sea on icebergs, will declare war on the robber barons who stole their money. These are the very same assholes who smack the Democrats over statements of "redistribution of wealth", and "class warfare". If they steal the money of senior citizens, THEY will be the ones who are redistributing wealth (from old folks to corporate cronies), it WILL be class warfare, and I, like many other seniors, won't take it sitting down. You will see protests and civil disobedience the likes you have never imagined in your wildest "tea induced" hallucinations. What will you do then? Shoot us all down, in front of the entire world? Because that is the only way you will be able to stop it. Old people who have nothing to lose will be your worst nightmare. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

NOTE 1: Just engaging in a little hyperbole here, to counteract the bat**** crazy hyperbole of Eric Cantor. I know that it will never come to this because most Republicans aren't bat**** crazy, like a few of them are. Thank God for reasonable people on both sides of the aisle. LOL.

NOTE 2: What the hell was Cantor thinking when he said what he said? Whatever drugs he was on, give me a six pack. They must be pretty damn good. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Every time I look at my pay stub and see how much money I have paid into SS, I think the same... If the government does away with it, I better get all that money back. I have paid so much SS tax...
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

SheWolf said:
Every time I look at my pay stub and see how much money I have paid into SS, I think the same... If the government does away with it, I better get all that money back. I have paid so much SS tax...
Click to expand...

:sorry: that money is gone. every time you look at that pay stub; that is money you will never see again
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

cpwill said:
:sorry: that money is gone. every time you look at that pay stub; that is money you will never see again
Click to expand...

Our SS money was borrowed not stolen, the government borrowed our Federal income tax dollars to save Wall Street and the Banks and we want every cent of that back with interest the same interest rates that the mafia banks get when they loan money, no more big salaries or bonuses for managers who have proven that they are high risk
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

EarlzP said:
Our SS money was borrowed not stolen, the government borrowed our Federal income tax dollars to save Wall Street and the Banks and we want every cent of that back with interest the same interest rates that the mafia banks get when they loan money, no more big salaries or bonuses for managers who have proven that they are high risk
Click to expand...
The problem being is that all or almost all of the money that went to the banks and to wall street firms has been paid back with interest, it is the money that went to GM and their UNIONS and to Freddie and Fanny that have not been paid back. Of course, Obama went and spent the money that was paid back on other buy vote schemes.

Even so, none of the money that went to the bailouts came from SS, that fund had already been tapped out and the Federal Government was already having to borrow money to pay for SS benefits.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

ggh said:
In 2008, the additional SS tax of those with salaries and wages of 100,000 or more would have come to a total of 5,243,610,342. This is hardly enough to keep the SSI system solvent under the current expenditures of the SS system, much less to pay for the future expenditures. Data from the IRS is not available for 2009 or 2010, but it is likely that those numbers are smaller for both years. 2008 Tax Data
Click to expand...

that is not what I read elsewhere.

Five Ways to Fix Social Security Before It Runs Dry




Currently, workers and employers each pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of income -- about 83% of all wages. Anything earned over and above escapes taxation. If we tax all income -- but don't raise payments to workers who make more than the cap -- we'll eliminate 100% of the shortfall, according to the American Academy of Actuaries. The problem will be persuading all those powerful high earners that they should pay more without getting more.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

MrVicchio said:
So you want yours and the rest of the country be damned. Got it.


YOU old er folks never kept a good reign on the politicians, the signs of SS being raided, ripped, and ruined were there for all to see... you didn't care.

And thus we, the ones paying for your error don't care bout YOU.
Click to expand...

This is a GREAT post. In a large way, it is the older among us that allowed it to happen. People have been warning of this for decades, it's not like it creeped up on anyone! I'm rich! I am personally not worried for myself or my children, and their children, BUT i Am worried about the American experiment! It can't last, and Obama, and the Dem's spending since 06 (Throw in Bush as well) has escalated the issue to coming to a head sooner rather than later. In 07 we were being warned that it wouldn't happen until 2056, well, look what happened in just 4 years.. 2020 is the new date! Not too far away if you ask me.

SS, Medicaid, Medicare, all a pipe dream, and economically foolish! We promised a continuous supply of fish and wine instead of teaching everyone to fish and grow grapes!


We reap what we have all sewn!


Tim-
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

Those are precisely the kind of mindless democrat responses they use every time financial issues are discussed. OMIGODTHEYWANNAKILLOLDPEOPLEANDWOMENANDBABIES!!!

Meanwhile, here in the real world, the mindless spending practices of ALL politicians has put us into a debt we simply CANNOT sustain. Social Security MUST be revamped. Social spending MUST be reconsidered. If its not all the weeping and wailing and hand wringing will be irrelevant because the country will be flatass broke beyond repair.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

VanceMack said:
Those are precisely the kind of mindless democrat responses they use every time financial issues are discussed. OMIGODTHEYWANNAKILLOLDPEOPLEANDWOMENANDBABIES!!!

Meanwhile, here in the real world, the mindless spending practices of ALL politicians has put us into a debt we simply CANNOT sustain. Social Security MUST be revamped. Social spending MUST be reconsidered. If its not all the weeping and wailing and hand wringing will be irrelevant because the country will be flatass broke beyond repair.
Click to expand...

No you are wrong we will not all be broke, folks my age will be drawing social security and all of the benefits we worked for and the rest of you will be working just like we did
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

EarlzP said:
No you are wrong we will not all be broke, folks my age will be drawing social security and all of the benefits we worked for and the rest of you will be working just like we did
Click to expand...
That's a mathematical impossibility. Your generation already spent the money that should have gone toward your social security benefts on other things and now you want to double dip.

As such, you're not asking us to "work just like you did," you're asking us to work a lot harder than you did AND to forego a much more sensible retirement solution than SS because you've been so irresponsible. And you want to paint *US* as the heartless ones.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

cpwill said:
so you tell me: which would you prefer? to turn the poor into financially independent retirees, or keep them dependent upon (smaller) government handouts financed by economy-harming tax rates?
Click to expand...

You and I both know lots of people who will spend all they earn and a little bit more, and forego saving for their retirement years.....
So it would have to be forced savings.....
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

liblady said:
it doesn't matter what it was intended to be.........many people rely on it. we need to raise the contribution cap.
Click to expand...

that is the main problem, people think they can rely on it to be enough.....it isn't so.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

The problem with investing your SS funds in the stock market and hoping to have more retirement income is too obvious.
Wall Street is not a level playing field.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

UtahBill said:
The problem with investing your SS funds in the stock market and hoping to have more retirement income is too obvious.
Wall Street is not a level playing field.
Click to expand...

It's is so obvious to see what is going on in our country, the top 1% of our population now has 40% of our nations wealth and that is not enough to satisfy their greed for power and money so they want to steal the so called entitlements of SS and medicare from those who paid into those programs for years. I have a much better idea lets replace our capitalistic economy with a socialistic economy. Trickle down has proved to be a total failure it's time to use a new approach one that is focused on preverving the middle class and giving the lower income earners a chance to share in the American dream

Which countries are socialist?

Socialism is a society where this large-scale private ownership of the big corporations, the banks and the land, is ended. This means that we can collectively and democratically plan how we use the world's resources. Hannah explains how:

"This would mean bringing all the big corporations, controlling around 80% of the economy, into democratic public ownership, under democratic working-class control."

Ordinary working class people - the vast majority of society - would then collectively own and control these wealth producing resources and would draw up a plan for their best use.


 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

EarlzP said:
No you are wrong we will not all be broke, folks my age will be drawing social security and all of the benefits we worked for and the rest of you will be working just like we did
Click to expand...

Folks like me are set and wont really be too all fired concerned about social security. And without mandated spending cuts and fixes, there will BE no social security...or any other social spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom