Democrats trying to cut social security

[Vympel]

Whilst dishonestly holding themselves out as its defenders - until the elections are over

I'm really glad that Alan Simpson moron opened his fat mouth about his contempt for social security - it really clued in everyone to what was really going on.

[Alphawolf55]

I never got why there's such vehemous refusal to cut SS in any way among the left. I mean, if it's cuts being made to citizens who need the money I can see the problem.But why is it considered always bad when SS is cut in any way even in ways like means testing?

[Knife]

Because it's the only large scale security net in America.

[General Zod]

I never got why there's such vehemous refusal to cut SS in any way among the left. I mean, if it's cuts being made to citizens who need the money I can see the problem.But why is it considered always bad when SS is cut in any way even in ways like means testing?

You realize that the vast majority of SS recipients are retired seniors who need the money, yes?

[Alphawolf55]

I never got why there's such vehemous refusal to cut SS in any way among the left. I mean, if it's cuts being made to citizens who need the money I can see the problem.But why is it considered always bad when SS is cut in any way even in ways like means testing?

You realize that the vast majority of SS recipients are retired seniors who need the money, yes?

Your question would only fit if I was asking why the Left is against cutting benefits in general, I'm not. I'm asking why they're against any cuts at all including stuff like means testing which would only affect those with huge retirement funds or generous pensions.

[Serafina]

I never got why there's such vehemous refusal to cut SS in any way among the left. I mean, if it's cuts being made to citizens who need the money I can see the problem.But why is it considered always bad when SS is cut in any way even in ways like means testing?

Hey, guess what:
Social security recipients DO need the money. That statement is almost tautological. Unless you can show that there are social security recipients who really do not need the money, your post is dripping with bullshit.

[General Zod]

I never got why there's such vehemous refusal to cut SS in any way among the left. I mean, if it's cuts being made to citizens who need the money I can see the problem.But why is it considered always bad when SS is cut in any way even in ways like means testing?

You realize that the vast majority of SS recipients are retired seniors who need the money, yes?

Your question would only fit if I was asking why the Left is against cutting benefits in general, I'm not. I'm asking why they're against any cuts at all including stuff like means testing which would only affect those with huge retirement funds or generous pensions.

Does it really matter if they have a generous pension or not? The point of Social Security is that everyone pays into it, so everyone should be able to benefit from it if they choose.

[Alphawolf55]

I never got why there's such vehemous refusal to cut SS in any way among the left. I mean, if it's cuts being made to citizens who need the money I can see the problem.But why is it considered always bad when SS is cut in any way even in ways like means testing?

Hey, guess what:
Social security recipients DO need the money. That statement is almost tautological. Unless you can show that there are social security recipients who really do not need the money, your post is dripping with bullshit.

Are you honestly arguing that there are no SS recipients, with generous pensions or huge retirement funds that could survive or even live a modest life style without SS? I mean I'm not going to argue against the idea that 90% of recipients need the money, but are you saying that all 100% of them do?

Does it really matter if they have a generous pension or not? The point of Social Security is that everyone pays into it, so everyone should be able to benefit from it if they choose..

Yes and no, true SS is suppose to be somewhat universal, you pay into it, you get something out of it and it wouldn't be fair to tell anyone about to receive it soon that they aren't getting their benefits. But at the same time if we're trying to cut spending wouldn't it make sense to cut spending in areas where all we're doing is giving relatively well off people more money?

[General Zod]

Yes and no, true SS is suppose to be somewhat universal, you pay into it, you get something out of it and it wouldn't be fair to tell anyone about to receive it soon that they aren't getting their benefits. But at the same time if we're trying to cut spending wouldn't it make sense to cut spending in areas where all we're doing is giving relatively well off people more money?

Or you could simply raise tax rates to make up the revenue instead of adding meaningless red tape.

[Alphawolf55]

Why not do both? I mean but my question remains why the uncompromising opposition? Is it the fear that if you make any cuts to SS that additional cuts will be made? Is it that implementing any change to SS would produce enough red tape that the cost of actually implementing the change would cost more then the cutted costs? Do they just truly believe in the idea that there should be a system where you pay money in and no matter what get money back?

[D.Turtle]

Are you honestly arguing that there are no SS recipients, with generous pensions or huge retirement funds that could survive or even live a modest life style without SS? I mean I'm not going to argue against the idea that 90% of recipients need the money, but are you saying that all 100% of them do?

All that would mean is that you punish people who save their money during their life. Why would you do that?

Especially since there is no need to cut Social Security, even without changing anything Social Security can cover all payouts until 2037 and cover 75% of the payouts beyond that.

[General Zod]

Do they just truly believe in the idea that there should be a system where you pay money in and no matter what get money back?

Why the fuck not? Plenty of countries implement such a system just fine.

[Alphawolf55]

Are you honestly arguing that there are no SS recipients, with generous pensions or huge retirement funds that could survive or even live a modest life style without SS? I mean I'm not going to argue against the idea that 90% of recipients need the money, but are you saying that all 100% of them do?

All that would mean is that you punish people who save their money during their life. Why would you do that?

Especially since there is no need to cut Social Security, even without changing anything Social Security can cover all payouts until 2037 and cover 75% of the payouts beyond that.

I wouldn't agree that it's punishing anyone. Paying into SS should be seen the same way as paying taxes into welfare, your paying into a service that helps the general welfare of our neediest even if you don't get to draw from it.

Also because we could use that cut money to expand welfare or help pay for a Universal healthcare system or even just simply reduce the debt.

Also Zod just because some countries can implement such a system doesn't make it the best choice.

[General Zod]

Also because we could use that cut money to expand welfare or help pay for a Universal healthcare system or even just simply reduce the debt.

Also Zod just because some countries can implement such a system doesn't make it the best choice.

Wait a minute.

Did you just seriously claim you want to cut one form of social safety net because it would help pay for another form of social safety net?

Are you fucking shitting me? Let me quote you again.

Do they just truly believe in the idea that there should be a system where you pay money in and no matter what get money back?

You realize that this is precisely what universal healthcare would entail, yes?

[Patroklos]

SS was never envisioned as some mandatory charity like welfare, it was sold on the premise that you pay in and get something back. There is nothing wrong witht he concept.

However, since the system was predicated on false assumptions about demographics and future contributions, I see no reason why it can't be modified to achieve the stated goal taking current circumstances into account. Retirement age/age you recieve benefits is one of the most glaring changes that need to be made.

[D.Turtle]

I wouldn't agree that it's punishing anyone. Paying into SS should be seen the same way as paying taxes into welfare, your paying into a service that helps the general welfare of our neediest even if you don't get to draw from it.

Also because we could use that cut money to expand welfare or help pay for a Universal healthcare system or even just simply reduce the debt.

Not paying out to people who have a certain amount of money saved, just means that these people have to live from their savings until they get poor enough that they qualify for the Social Security payouts. Why would you do that?

Especially since it isn't needed.

However, since the system was predicated on false assumptions about demographics and future contributions, I see no reason why it can't be modified to achieve the stated goal taking current circumstances into account. Retirement age/age you recieve benefits is one of the most glaring changes that need to be made.

That argument is total bullshit. The people who calculated all the demographics stuff at the beginning of Social Security were pretty much right on the money with the expected life expectancy of people nowadays and into the future (including baby-boomers retiring). Thats why with current projections Social Security - without any changes at all - wil be able to cover 75% of all payouts indefinitely.

[Alphawolf55]

Slight difference. Universal Healthcare System benefits everyone, welfare is suppose to benefit anyone who's under a certain income bracket (doesn't work that way since our country has to do things dumbly), SS benefits the disabled (no complaint) and retirees of over 67 and over, it's not truly universal.

There's nothing strange about wanting to stop sending checks to those who don't need it, to pay for services that help people who do.

I'd say there's a bit of a difference between a Universal Health Care system and SS. One is everyone paying a certain percentage of their income for a necessity, that's been shown to cost the least when control and regulated by the Government. The other is a system you pay a certain percentage and get like 10,000 back a year regardless of how much money you're sitting on or how much money you're making a year.

Having healthcare is a need, getting an extra 10,000 a year is not. Additionally the cost of not having a universal healthcare system outweighs any money saved by doing a different system. Like I asked before, would implement means testing end up costing more money then could possibly be saved?

Also D Turtle, because it'd save money in certain cases, since there's possibly enough retirees who would never have to draw into SS for there to be a potential benefit?

[Patrick Degan]

Slight difference. Universal Healthcare System benefits everyone, welfare is suppose to benefit anyone who's under a certain income bracket (doesn't work that way since our country has to do things dumbly), SS benefits the disabled (no complaint) and retirees of over 67 and over, it's not truly universal.

Um, you do realise that, eventually, everyone reaches mandatory retirement age and/or the point in their lives when they are no longer able to work, don't you? That sort of makes your statement illogical.

[General Zod]

Slight difference. Universal Healthcare System benefits everyone, welfare is suppose to benefit anyone who's under a certain income bracket (doesn't work that way since our country has to do things dumbly), SS benefits the disabled (no complaint) and retirees of over 67 and over, it's not truly universal.

There's nothing strange about wanting to stop sending checks to those who don't need it, to pay for services that help people who do.

Except it's completely pointless when there are other solutions that don't involve fucking over people. Why not go for the method that's going to cause the least harm?

I'd say there's a bit of a difference between a Universal Health Care system and SS. One is everyone paying a certain percentage of their income for a necessity, that's been shown to cost the least when control and regulated by the Government. The other is a system you pay a certain percentage and get like 10,000 back a year regardless of how much money you're sitting on or how much money you're making a year.

By your logic we should exempt the anyone making more than a certain amount per year from Universal Healthcare because they can afford to cover their own bills.

Having healthcare is a need, getting an extra 10,000 a year is not. Additionally the cost of not having a universal healthcare system outweighs any money saved by doing a different system. Like I asked before, would implement means testing end up costing more money then could possibly be saved?

I think you're overestimating how many people there really are that could get by without social security benefits. Even if you implemented such a system you'd have to hire people to double check their information, and it wouldn't just be the "rich" people you'd be checking, you'd have to check the information of every single person that wanted to claim social security benefits.

[Alphawolf55]

Except it's completely pointless when there are other solutions that don't involve fucking over people. Why not go for the method that's going to cause the least harm?

How is it pointless? There's not infinite amount of money in this country, and you can't make the different needed entirely out of taxes, so how is it pointless? I'd say taking the money meant to be given to the relatively wealthy guy over 67, to give money to the extremely poor 24 year old, is doing less harm. Seriously it wouldn't be considered fucking someone over, if we were talking about taxing people of higher income more, so why is it considered fucking someone over to not give someone who with lots of money, more money?

By your logic we should exempt the anyone making more than a certain amount per year from Universal Healthcare because they can afford to cover their own bills ?

I thought about it, but from what I've read, the additional cost to the system would outweigh the benefits.

Additionally, the idea isn't that you'd just cut people who could live entirely without it, it'd be phased out, at a certain income sure you'd get no benefits but still, when you consider that and the fact 15% of households made over 100,000 a year, along with some of the pension systems (granted the majority are crap but there are a few out there, for example it's not ridiculous for some MTA workers who gamed the system in NYC to get around 80,000 per year due to pension rules). I don't think it'd be ridiculous to save around 5-10% which is like 30-60 billion. True the amount could be far less, hell I could be completely wrong and the cost of hiring people to do such checks could be more then the money saved, which is why I asked if that's the case. I've heard the suggestion be made before but never been able to find a conclusive study or prediction. Do you by any chance have any relevant material on the subject?

[General Zod]

How is it pointless? There's not infinite amount of money in this country, and you can't make the different needed entirely out of taxes, so how is it pointless? I'd say taking the money meant to be given to the relatively wealthy guy over 67, to give money to the extremely poor 24 year old, is doing less harm. Seriously it wouldn't be considered fucking someone over, if we were talking about taxing people of higher income more, so why is it considered fucking someone over to not give someone who with lots of money, more money?

So what happens if we have another case of big banks dying and taking people's life savings with them? Suddenly that extra source of income isn't so much, especially if they suffer any health related malady in the near future, which people in their 60s and up are inclined to do.

I thought about it, but from what I've read, the additional cost to the system would outweigh the benefits.

Additionally, the idea isn't that you'd just cut people who could live entirely without it, it'd be phased out, at a certain income sure you'd get no benefits but still, when you consider that and the fact 15% of households made over 100,000 a year, along with some of the pension systems (granted the majority are crap but there are a few out there, for example it's not ridiculous for some MTA workers who gamed the system in NYC to get around 80,000 per year due to pension rules). I don't think it'd be ridiculous to save around 5-10% which is like 30-60 billion. True the amount could be far less, and the cost of hiring people to do such checks could be more then the money saved, which is why I asked if that's the case. I've heard the suggestion be made before but never been able to find a conclusive study or prediction.

You realize that a significant number of these people making $80k+ have more than one person dependent on them?

[D.Turtle]

And just to put that income level into perspective: About 5% of people, or 15% of households earn $100k a year or more.

And once again - Social Security does not require any cuts to remain solvent. So why do it?

[Alphawolf55]

I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are we saying, how would the system treat people who lost all their savings? I assume they'd instantly qualify for the full amount. The idea would be that we treat SS like a saner form of welfare.

Also I generally doubt that 67 year olds with pensions have many dependents other then their husband or wives, so I don't see how that comment is relevant to the idea that retirees with generous pensions might not need their full SS.

D Turtle, because SS is not the only part of the Government budget, there are debts and windfalls in other areas and it doesn't matter how well financed SS is, if the other functions of Government aren't.

[Highlord Laan]

Slight difference. Universal Healthcare System benefits everyone, welfare is suppose to benefit anyone who's under a certain income bracket (doesn't work that way since our country has to do things dumbly), SS benefits the disabled (no complaint) and retirees of over 67 and over, it's not truly universal.

Um, you do realise that, eventually, everyone reaches mandatory retirement age and/or the point in their lives when they are no longer able to work, don't you? That sort of makes your statement illogical.

I, nor anyone else in my generation, are going to get anything out of Social Security aside from a blank spot in out finances where that money could have been. As I'll never see any of it, I see no reason I should be paying into it.

[General Zod]

I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are we saying, how would the system treat people who lost all their savings? I assume they'd instantly qualify for the full amount. The idea would be that we treat SS like a saner form of welfare.

The problem is that government programs with strings often have all kinds of red-tape attached makes your idea incredibly naive. Those strings usually include long wait times to get switched onto an "active" role, especially if there's any kind of financial crisis that suddenly changes a lot of people's financial situations. By the time someone who's lost a significant chunk of their savings gets put on the "active" role he could well be penniless and out on the street.

D Turtle, because SS is not the only part of the Government budget, there are debts and windfalls in other areas and it doesn't matter how well financed SS is, if the other functions of Government aren't.

So why don't we cut the military budget instead of something that people actually need?