• 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!

Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate

Should Social Security Retirement be increased?

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
DaveFagan

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate


Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate

"On the issue of the Chained-CPI, which Obama is reportedly advocating for, The Nation figures that a conservative estimate indicates that the CPI would "take $15,615 in cumulative benefits from the average senior who lived to 95."
But Warren is going much further and debunking the whole notion that seniors living on $1,269 a month are the major contributors to the deficit as compared to the tax breaks and loopholes that have led to the massive redistribution of national revenue to the top 1 %.
In a news release on Warren's senate website, she issued a clarion call to save our elderly from poverty imposed by the "conventional wisdom" of shifting the nation's financial assets to a privileged few:
“With tens of millions of people more financially stressed as they approach retirement, with more and more people left out of the private retirement security system, and with the economic security of our families unraveling, Social Security is rapidly becoming the only lifeline that millions of seniors have to keep their heads above water,” Senator Warren said. “And yet, instead of taking on the retirement crisis, instead of strengthening Social Security, some in Washington are actually fighting to cut benefits…
"So long as these problems continue to exist and so long as we are in the midst of a real and growing retirement crisis – a crisis that is shaking the foundations of what was once a vibrant and secure middle class – the absolute last thing we should be doing is talking about cutting back on Social Security. The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 – at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors – is allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch.”

Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate

Is this finally the voice of sanity ringing in DC?

Who do you trust?

Is she the voice of the 99%?
 
She is the voice of ultra liberals needing to buy extra votes in November 2014 and will bankrupt our nation gladly to make it happen.

As for your poll voted know but I'd also vote for let congress (and the president) enjoy social security and their own retirement plans - not one paid for by us.
 
Fauxachontas is a socialist? tell me something we don't know
 
I think it should be increased, I would like to see the cap taken off and possibly lowering the payroll tax somewhat. Can you imagine what would have happened during the Great Bush recession if there wasn't Social Security?
 
pbrauer said:
I think it should be increased, I would like to see the cap taken off and possibly lowering the payroll tax somewhat. Can you imagine what would have happened during the Great Bush recession if there wasn't Social Security?
Click to expand...

why should rich people pay more and more and getting no increased benefits
 
Increased to what, and for whom?

I love the smell of free money in the morning. Does this mean I'll get a raise?
 
TurtleDude said:
why should rich people pay more and more and getting no increased benefits
Click to expand...
I not sure they wouldn't get increased benefits. I know the more one contributes to SS the more benefits they get at retirement. I confess I don't how that all works.
 
Rich people should not receive social security at all, something that all greedy senior groups disagree with..There is a conservative version of AARP that is worse than they are..Time to means-test the lazy-rich-retired..
TurtleDude said:
why should rich people pay more and more and getting no increased benefits
Click to expand...
 
DaveFagan said:
Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate


Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate

"On the issue of the Chained-CPI, which Obama is reportedly advocating for, The Nation figures that a conservative estimate indicates that the CPI would "take $15,615 in cumulative benefits from the average senior who lived to 95."
But Warren is going much further and debunking the whole notion that seniors living on $1,269 a month are the major contributors to the deficit as compared to the tax breaks and loopholes that have led to the massive redistribution of national revenue to the top 1 %.
In a news release on Warren's senate website, she issued a clarion call to save our elderly from poverty imposed by the "conventional wisdom" of shifting the nation's financial assets to a privileged few:
“With tens of millions of people more financially stressed as they approach retirement, with more and more people left out of the private retirement security system, and with the economic security of our families unraveling, Social Security is rapidly becoming the only lifeline that millions of seniors have to keep their heads above water,” Senator Warren said. “And yet, instead of taking on the retirement crisis, instead of strengthening Social Security, some in Washington are actually fighting to cut benefits…
"So long as these problems continue to exist and so long as we are in the midst of a real and growing retirement crisis – a crisis that is shaking the foundations of what was once a vibrant and secure middle class – the absolute last thing we should be doing is talking about cutting back on Social Security. The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 – at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors – is allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch.”

Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate

Is this finally the voice of sanity ringing in DC?

Who do you trust?

Is she the voice of the 99%?
Click to expand...

1. Warren is verifiably in open defiance of reality if she thinks that entitlements are not the key drivers of our current spending and future debt.

2. She is right that currently Social Security is a rotten surprise for seniors who think that it's going to take care of them. The average baby boomer is retiring with around $255K saved, and often in debt - they think that SS is going to be their backstop. They are woefully mistaken; even if SS was able to last throughout their retirement (and it will not), the average payments are too low for decent living - and they are lower for our lower income retirees, who are least likely to have been able to save on the side.

3. That being said, if you want to increase SS payouts and give financial independence to our low-income workers without collapsing the entitlement system, well, there is actually a way to do that. But I don't think Mrs Warren is going to like it. ;)
 
pbrauer said:
I not sure they wouldn't get increased benefits. I know the more one contributes to SS the more benefits they get at retirement. I confess I don't how that all works.
Click to expand...

Here you go.

Basically:

Take your 35 highest paid years
Figure out the average monthly income, with a multiple for earlier years to account for Wage Growth

Out of that average, your monthly return will be:
90% of the first $791
32% of the second strata: $792 to $4,768
and 15% of the third strata, which is everything above that.


So if on weighted average you made $60,000 a year, with 5K a month you would get
(.9*791 = $711.90) + (.32*(4768-791) = $1,272.64) + (.15*(5000-4768) = $34.8) = a Monthly Check of $2,019.34

...if you averaged 60,000 for 35 years.
 
pbrauer said:
I think it should be increased, I would like to see the cap taken off and possibly lowering the payroll tax somewhat. Can you imagine what would have happened during the Great Bush recession if there wasn't Social Security?
Click to expand...

Given that I have run the numbers - yes. Seniors would have retired better off had they instead invested 10% of their income into the basic market over the course of their working lifetimes, instead of 15% of their income into Social (in)Security, and then retired at the end of 2008.
 
TurtleDude said:
why should rich people pay more and more and getting no increased benefits
Click to expand...

The infrastructure benefits the wealthy much more than the 99%. Airports, highways, ports, intracoastals, gov't financing for huge energy projects(nukes, utilities), Military/Industrial/Corporate complex, no inheritance tax for bums that inherit wealth, pipelines, transmission lines, communications, and the list goes on. The 1% are leeches on the body economic of the Nation.
 
Social Security is not sustainable. It should be eliminated and allow for individuals to invest in their own retirement throughout their lives. I can understand Medicare, but SS should be eliminated with more tax breaks given to retirement and investments for retirement.
 
DaveFagan said:
The infrastructure benefits the wealthy much more than the 99%. Airports, highways, ports, intracoastals, gov't financing for huge energy projects(nukes, utilities), Military/Industrial/Corporate complex, no inheritance tax for bums that inherit wealth, pipelines, transmission lines, communications, and the list goes on. The 1% are leeches on the body economic of the Nation.
Click to expand...

BS=-populist garbage. lots of envy mixed in with that stupidity. why do you claim to be a conservative when you spew populist hate the rich nonsense?
 
DaveFagan said:
Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate


Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate

"On the issue of the Chained-CPI, which Obama is reportedly advocating for, The Nation figures that a conservative estimate indicates that the CPI would "take $15,615 in cumulative benefits from the average senior who lived to 95."
But Warren is going much further and debunking the whole notion that seniors living on $1,269 a month are the major contributors to the deficit as compared to the tax breaks and loopholes that have led to the massive redistribution of national revenue to the top 1 %.
In a news release on Warren's senate website, she issued a clarion call to save our elderly from poverty imposed by the "conventional wisdom" of shifting the nation's financial assets to a privileged few:
“With tens of millions of people more financially stressed as they approach retirement, with more and more people left out of the private retirement security system, and with the economic security of our families unraveling, Social Security is rapidly becoming the only lifeline that millions of seniors have to keep their heads above water,” Senator Warren said. “And yet, instead of taking on the retirement crisis, instead of strengthening Social Security, some in Washington are actually fighting to cut benefits…
"So long as these problems continue to exist and so long as we are in the midst of a real and growing retirement crisis – a crisis that is shaking the foundations of what was once a vibrant and secure middle class – the absolute last thing we should be doing is talking about cutting back on Social Security. The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 – at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors – is allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch.”

Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate

Is this finally the voice of sanity ringing in DC?

Who do you trust?

Is she the voice of the 99%?
Click to expand...

I think there needs to be a moderately paced shift from Social Security to government mandated contributions into indexed private investment accounts. I'd be okay with eventually getting to the place where 50% or more of Social Security contributions went to buy and add to indexed stock portfolios each month. President Bush had it right and the Democrats in Congress were in my opinion wrong. With individually mandated private investment accounts every working American would be essentially required to purchase, the generation entering the workforce today would all be wealthy by the time they retire; everyone who worked all of their lives, not just the privileged few.
 
It amazes me people approve of their money being taken by the government by force and it amazes me even more that they approve of being called idiots that can't save for their own retirements. I also think it's amazing that people actually want to rob their grandchildren to pay for their retirement.
 
Henrin said:
It amazes me people approve of their money being taken by the government by force and it amazes me even more that they approve of being called idiots that can't save for their own retirements. I also think it's amazing that people actually want to rob their grandchildren to pay for their retirement.
Click to expand...

Well, they don't. That's why they lie to themselves and pretend like they are only getting out what they have paid in.
 
cpwill said:
Well, they don't. That's why they lie to themselves and pretend like they are only getting out what they have paid in.
Click to expand...

I never cared for that argument. The money they have paid is gone and the money they are receiving comes from unwilling participants. If we are to consider Social Security a contract that the US government must uphold, in which many people treat it as, then it would follow that the contract would need to be signed and agreed to by all those taking part, or else it is nothing but theft by the us government.

As I see it, social security is a system of legalized theft that takes from the young and gives to the old in an attempt to boost the living standards of the old. I would need a new objection to Social Security if the young approved of this transaction to begin with, but of course, much like it is with many forms of taxation or mandated insurance coverage, no one would agree to such an arrangement making it clear that the arrangement is undesirable.
 
pbrauer said:
I not sure they wouldn't get increased benefits. I know the more one contributes to SS the more benefits they get at retirement. I confess I don't how that all works.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a cap and thus there is no reason the rich should pay more.
 
Henrin said:
I never cared for that argument. The money they have paid is gone and the money they are receiving comes from unwilling participants. If we are to consider Social Security a contract that the US government must uphold, in which many people treat it as, then it would follow that the contract would need to be signed and agreed to by all those taking part, or else it is nothing but theft by the us government.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with treating it as a social contract - in which case, I want the money back from the Boomers that was supposed to be in the Trust Fund but which they spent on themselves, as well as the ability to formulate my own contract which involves me providing for my own retirement.

As I see it, social security is a system of legalized theft that takes from the young and gives to the old in an attempt to boost the living standards of the old. I would need a new objection to Social Security if the young approved of this transaction to begin with, but of course, much like it is with many forms of taxation or mandated insurance coverage, no one would agree to such an arrangement making it clear that the arrangement is undesirable.
Click to expand...

:) The people who vote least are the easiest ones to tax, after all.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Social Security is not sustainable. It should be eliminated and allow for individuals to invest in their own retirement throughout their lives. I can understand Medicare, but SS should be eliminated with more tax breaks given to retirement and investments for retirement.
Click to expand...
SS should be reduced over a period of 20 years until it is gone, except for those who truly are incapable of caring for themselves. We should save and invest for our retirement years.
Investments should be protected by the government from crooks. Said crooks should be forced to relinquish triple the amount gained, even if it means they become poverty stricken, and then they should be put on chain gangs in Arizona in the summer, in Illinois during the winter.
 
Just give $10,000 to every single citizen and call it, "Potato Power Punch". That way no citizen has advantage over another citizen for being poor, being rich, owning a business, being employed, being unemployed, being old, being young, living in rural areas, living in metropolitan areas, living in the south, living up north or any other opportunity for animosity between each other. Let's make it easier for people to STFU about how government beneficiaries have advantage over those who don't receive subsidies. Most times that isn't even true especially in relation to the poor. If it was so advantageous to be poor the rich people would give away all of their assets and get a minimum wage job. I don't see any rich people doing that. It makes you wonder if they are lying about how great poor people have it.

That $10,000 is just a made up number. It can be changed to $12,248, $24,612, $75,374 or any other figure that can be imagined. It probably needs to be low enough to encourage people to work but high enough to provide very basic survival.
 
TurtleDude said:
BS=-populist garbage. lots of envy mixed in with that stupidity. why do you claim to be a conservative when you spew populist hate the rich nonsense?
Click to expand...

Many of the rich deserve to be shot immediately after a court convicts them. There are still hundreds of criminals on Wall Street, and in Congress. It IS possible to get rich honestly, those I have no problem with. But the rest of them need to be prosecuted.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Just give $10,000 to every single citizen and call it, "Potato Power Punch". That way no citizen has advantage over another citizen for being poor, being rich, owning a business, being employed, being unemployed, being old, being young, living in rural areas, living in metropolitan areas, living in the south, living up north or any other opportunity for animosity between each other. Let's make it easier for people to STFU about how government beneficiaries have advantage over those who don't receive subsidies. Most times that isn't even true especially in relation to the poor. If it was so advantageous to be poor the rich people would give away all of their assets and get a minimum wage job. I don't see any rich people doing that. It makes you wonder if they are lying about how great poor people have it.

That $10,000 is just a made up number. It can be changed to $12,248, $24,612, $75,374 or any other figure that can be imagined. It probably needs to be low enough to encourage people to work but high enough to provide very basic survival.
Click to expand...
GIVE? I prefer EARN....
 
UtahBill said:
Said crooks should be forced to relinquish triple the amount gained, even if it means they become poverty stricken
Click to expand...

If you change that to quadruple and you have yourself a Bible lesson.

Luke 19:8 said:
8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom