Democrats trying to cut social security

[D.Turtle]

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.

Ah, so not only does Social Security have to be entirely self-financed (unlike every other government expenditure program), it has to make up for shortfalls in other areas of government spending.

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.

And you base this upon?

[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.

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?

I could see where your concern is coming from, at the same time though I think you'd be surprised. For example, after losing my job, I was able to get food stamps literally the next day by showing them some checks, some bank accounts and a letter of unemployment, they then informed me that I'd have a check in, in 6 months where I had to send in my fiancial reports, and if it turned out I was making far more then needed, I might need to pay back the money at a rate convenient to me. My point is, alot of Government has red tape but there's alot of things that have quick easy processes.

Plus a 30 year old could have the same thing happen to him, personally I'd much rather kind of combine Welfare and SS into one giant program that in general helps the poor, but that'd never fly.

Edit: Actually since the same situation could happen to a younger man, or even a middle age man. Do you believe in your opinion that everyone in this country should get some kind of check, just in case? I mean I know some do.

Also where have I said that we shouldn't cut the military? We should, the problem is, even if we cut the entire military budget, and raise taxes for everyone by over 10%, there's still gonna be a slight shortfall. Fact is, we're going to need to raise taxes and cut most sectors of the budget by 10-20% and shift some money from some programs to others.

So tell me, why do you see taking a guy who has a huge amount of money saved up SS away from him as hurting him, but charging him huge property tax for his retirement home, or taxing his stock options as okay? It just strikes me as weird, because all 3 cases seem to end up with the same outcome.

[Surlethe]

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.

Nonsense. Unless the Republicans intimidate the Democrats into dismantling it entirely, SS will be fine. When you hear "oh god it is running multi-dozen trillion dollar deficits", what that really means is, "If you model the annual SS deficit based on demographics for every year between now and forever and add it up, you get multi-dozen trillion dollars." In reality, SS is projected to run a deficit during the Boomers' retirement that could be corrected by a 2.2% payroll tax increase (and that's not even taking into account the possibility of lifting the income cap or raising the retirement age, both of which should happen).

[source: Factcheck.org.]

Edit: To get a sense of what this means, think about the US economy's growth. The US economy growing at even just 2% annually gives, over 75 years, a SS deficit of just 5% of all generated wealth.

[Vendetta]

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

The point of means testing for benefits like Social Security is that you work out whether people actually do need it, and you pay it to the people who do.

[Patroklos]

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.

Except it easn't designed to have a 75% payout at any point, it was designed to have a 100% payout rate. A 25% error is pretty dame significant, and proves conclusively that their assumptions were indeed far off the mark.

I am not even blaming the original designers, its damn hard to predict demographics to such a degree, which is why we shouldn't be balking that the system needs tweeking.

[SirNitram]

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.

Except it easn't designed to have a 75% payout at any point, it was designed to have a 100% payout rate. A 25% error is pretty dame significant, and proves conclusively that their assumptions were indeed far off the mark.

I am not even blaming the original designers, its damn hard to predict demographics to such a degree, which is why we shouldn't be balking that the system needs tweeking.

Bob Myers was one of the numbers men who crunched it during 1934 for Roosevelt. He projected a 12.7% slice of our population to be 65 or older in the year 2000. In 2000, the actual number of people was 12.4%. (Ref: This book and the US Census) So it seems that the 'their assumptions were indeed far off the mark' is a load of horse-shit dumped from wherever you get your views.

Tell me, do you read the SS Trustee's Report? I do. I found an interesting thing in this years: The deficits are all lessened, even under intermidiate assumptions. In addition, we all still quietly hope the Low Cost outcome never, ever comes true. Bet you can't even guess why.

Your claim that 75% was never supposed to happen ignores something else: Under their math, the US was never supposed be this rich. Inflation, at the level our Fed tries to keep it at, was never supposed to be this high. So they never imagined that 75% of projected would result in the sheer amount of money and value they would get.

[General Zod]

I could see where your concern is coming from, at the same time though I think you'd be surprised. For example, after losing my job, I was able to get food stamps literally the next day by showing them some checks, some bank accounts and a letter of unemployment, they then informed me that I'd have a check in, in 6 months where I had to send in my fiancial reports, and if it turned out I was making far more then needed, I might need to pay back the money at a rate convenient to me. My point is, alot of Government has red tape but there's alot of things that have quick easy processes.

Except with social security you've already paid into it.

Also where have I said that we shouldn't cut the military? We should, the problem is, even if we cut the entire military budget, and raise taxes for everyone by over 10%, there's still gonna be a slight shortfall. Fact is, we're going to need to raise taxes and cut most sectors of the budget by 10-20% and shift some money from some programs to others.

I'd like to see some more evidence for these 'facts' than your say so. Frankly I can name plenty of other sectors I'd sooner see get cut than one of the nation's few safety nets.

[Alphawolf55]

Yeah but the point is, there do exist Government programs that are easy to tap into when you need them that give immediate help.

We have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit which is predicted to become a 1 trillion dollar deficit. Do you honestly expect to get the full amount from cutting military spending and raising taxes? I mean, theoritically if we had a single payer system like Canada's, we could lower healthcare cost to European levels, and then tax the extra 2-4000 per capita that's being freed up, but that would take around a decade.

Again, you're not cutting it from a safety net, if you're shifting the funds into another more needs based safety net.

[General Zod]

Yeah but the point is, there do exist Government programs that are easy to tap into when you need them that give immediate help.

We have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit which is predicted to become a 1 trillion dollar deficit. Do you honestly expect to get the full amount from cutting military spending and raising taxes? I mean, theoritically if we had a single payer system like Canada's, we could lower healthcare cost to European levels, and then tax the extra 2-4000 per capita that's being freed up, but that would take around a decade.

Again, you're not cutting it from a safety net, if you're shifting the funds into another more needs based safety net.

Who said anything about the full amount? Also, right now military spending makes up about 23% of the total GDP. You can keep cutting things all you want but if you don't create a revenue stream the only thing that deficit is going to do is get bigger, and the only thing you can do to create that revenue stream is raise taxes.

[Elfdart]

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.

Lifting the cap on earnings alone would solve the problem for the next hundred years or more. In other words, making those who earn >$150,000 a year pay the same percentage as everyone else.

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.

That's Bullshit!

The only danger to Social Security (aside from the Catfood Commission and the pols who support it) is morons like you. If your SS was really going to be worthless, why the fuck do you think they have such a throbbing hard-on to take it away from you? You don't see commissions being set up to confiscate all Monopoly money, do you?

[Alphawolf55]

Again, I'm not disagreeing, I specifically said we're going to need to raise taxes, but the way the US is currently structured, we can't reasonably tax the full amount or even half the full amount. Like I said, if we fixed healthcare spending we could possibly do it, since it'd free up about 1-1.5 trillion dollars in our country but still, that's at least 10-12 years off.

[General Zod]

Again, I'm not disagreeing, I specifically said we're going to need to raise taxes, but the way the US is currently structured, we can't reasonably tax the full amount or even half the full amount. Like I said, if we fixed healthcare spending we could possibly do it, since it'd free up about 1-1.5 trillion dollars in our country but still, that's at least 10-12 years off.

Again, who the fuck said anything about the full amount of the deficit?

[Alphawolf55]

No one, but if we're going to try to reduce the deficit, we might as well try to go all the way.

[General Zod]

No one, but if we're going to try to reduce the deficit, we might as well try to go all the way.

You realize that the government needs a deficit for purchasing power to begin with? It's unrealistic to eliminate it entirely.

[Alphawolf55]

It's happened before, granted with some accounting lies but I've seen no evidence it can't be done for real.

[General Zod]

It's happened before, granted with some accounting lies but I've seen no evidence it can't be done for real.

Pretty much the only way to eliminate the deficit entirely would be for the US to default. That would be a bad thing.

[Alphawolf55]

Not really, like I said. If we raised taxes along with some meaningful spending cuts, funds transfer, along with industry control in certain big areas like healthcare, we could potentially reduce it entirely. It'll take 10-20 years to happen, but it's not impossible, other countries have US level styles and their spending is far below ours, we just spend money in this country in wasteful ways.

[General Zod]

Not really, like I said. If we raised taxes along with some meaningful spending cuts, funds transfer, along with industry control in certain big areas like healthcare, we could potentially reduce it entirely. It'll take 10-20 years to happen, but it's not impossible, other countries have US level styles and their spending is far below ours, we just spend money in this country in wasteful ways.

None of that actually explains why it's more desirable to eliminate it entirely than to simply reduce it.

[Alphawolf55]

Because the more debt we have, the more interest we gotta pay on it, this year the interest on the debt was only around 150 billion, but in 2008 it was around 250 billion, that's not a small amount of money. Additionally we've been able to deal with it, because our economy has grown as a constant rate to keep up with our level of debt spending, but there's no guarantee we're going to have constant inflation to keep our debts sustainable, it's better to be safe then sorry.

[General Zod]

Because the more debt we have, the more interest we gotta pay on it, this year the interest on the debt was only around 150 billion, but in 2008 it was around 250 billion, that's not a small amount of money. Additionally we've been able to deal with it, because our economy has grown as a constant rate to keep up with our level of debt spending, but there's no guarantee we're going to have constant inflation to keep our debts sustainable, it's better to be safe then sorry.

That doesn't actually answer my question. Your entire claim rests on the assumption that zero deficit is more desirable than a small deficit, which is based on . . . what?

[Alphawolf55]

Yes it does. You asked why no deficit is better then some, it's better because any deficit we have will lead to a higher debt and thus higher interest payments, and if there's not a sufficient amount of corresponding inflation going on, it'll become unstainable.

[General Zod]

Yes it does. You asked why no deficit is better then some, it's better because any deficit we have will lead to a higher debt and thus higher interest payments, and if there's not a sufficient amount of corresponding inflation going on, it'll become unstainable.

In other words, you're basing this on nothing more than empty rhetoric.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21299.html

Kevin Zeese writes: The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is sounding the alarm around deficit spending. It is using exaggerated rhetoric to heighten deficit fear at a time when more spending is needed.

The commission’s rhetoric is working against the antidote for the economy – spending to restart job and economic growth. Forty leading economists, including Nobel prize winners, issued a statement calling for more spending in the short-term. They recognized debt as a long term problem, but urged immediate increased spending to avoid prolonging and deepening the economic collapse, writing:

“We recognize the necessity of a program to cut the mid- and long-term federal deficit but the imperative requirement now, and the surest course to balance the budget over time, is to restore a full measure of economic activity. As in the 1930s, the economy is suffering a sharp decline in aggregate demand and loss of business confidence. Long experience shows that monetary policy may not be enough, particularly in deep slumps, as Keynes noted.

“The urgent need is for government to replace the lost purchasing power of the unemployed and their families and to employ other tax-cut and spending programs to boost demand. Making deficit reduction the first target, without addressing the chronic underlying deficiency of demand, is exactly the error of the 1930s. It will prolong the great recession, harm the social cohesion of the country, and continue inflicting unnecessary hardship on millions of Americans.”

For list of signers and more information click here.

The Obama deficit commission is working against this urgent need. And, in pushing proposals that will weaken the middle class they risk real anger from American voters who are already unhappy with the administration’s handling of the economy. The commission is talking about cuts to Social Security, Medicare and middle class benefits like the home mortgage deduction rather then focusing on the three causes of the deficit: massive war and weapons spending, giant tax cuts for the wealthy and the faltering economy.

The time is now to build opposition to these recommendations and urge Congress and the administration to cut programs that will not make the economy worse for most Americans. When I testified before the commission I urged:

Cuts in military spending as this makes up half of U.S. discretionary spending and is filled with waste and bloat.

Cuts to corporate welfare, especially to the oil and gas industry which is scheduled to received billions in tax breaks despite massive profits.

Taxes on the purchase of stocks, bonds and derivatives where even a tiny micro tax could raise tens of billions annually.

Taxes on the estates of the wealthiest 97.5% of Americans which could raise more than $10 billion annually.

Click here to read my full testimony.

These are just a few of the areas where cuts in spending and taxes on wealth could balance the budget and avoid the need to cut Social Security and Medicare or tax the middle class.

In fact, Social Security is in good financial shape for upcoming decades and merely raising the cap on Social Security taxes will make the program secure for the 21st Century. In the long run the economy needs a stronger elderly economic class. The loss of pensions, stock market collapse and savings transformed to debt leaves too many Americans dependent on the measly $14,030 annual average benefits Social Security provides.

Medicare’s challenge is not the Medicare program but the cost of health care. Cuts to Medicare will make health problems and the cost of health care more expensive. Unfortunately, the new Obama health law does not control costs and the president did not even consider the real solution for health care: ending the waste of the private insurance industry by making improved Medicare available to all Americans.

The commission is preparing its report for after the mid-term elections this November. But, it is before the elections when voters have the most power. We need to demand elected officials protect Social Security and Medicare by cutting spending for weapons and war, and raising tax dollars from the wealthy – who profited from a decade of deficit spending, first. We also need to urge them to consider taxes on wealth before considering taxes on workers. We need to let them know that our votes are dependent on them taking these actions.

You can begin to respond to the deficit commission now by writing President Obama and your representatives in Congress. You can do so by clicking here. And, to begin to build opposition to the deficit commission and urge real solutions to the economy send this article to everyone you know and urge them to take action.

Tell elected officials that to solve the deficit problem, they should focus on the causes of the deficit: nearly the entire deficit for this year and projected into the foreseeable future are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and the recession. The solutions are: end the wars, allow the tax cuts to
expire and restore robust growth.

Stopping the deficit commission from making things worse is only a first step. Americans need to organize to re-make the economy. To end the wealth divide which has allowed the top 1% to hoard the nation’s wealth, end concentration of corporate power which not only adds to the wealth divide but stifles entrepreneurship and weakens democracy and stop crony capitalism which uses tax dollars to enrich a few. Much work is needed to democratize the U.S. economy so it is transparent and benefits all Americans not the economic elite. But the immediate task at hand is to stop the deficit hawks from making things worse as they are poised to do. An outcry from Americans can stop their worst proposals before they gain momentum.

[Alphawolf55]

Maybe you should read your own article, in no way do they say that it's not important to reduce the deficit, they specifically say that debt is a long term problem. They're just saying we need short term keynesian economic solutions, that can help jump start the economy, they're not recommending long term deficit spending.

[General Zod]

Maybe you should read your own article, in no way do they say that it's not important to reduce the deficit, they specifically say that debt is a long term problem. They're just saying we need short term keynesian economic solutions, that can help jump start the economy, they're not recommending long term deficit spending.

Are you an idiot or can you simply not read? I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce the deficit. I'm saying eliminating it entirely is stupid.

[Alphawolf55]

Yeah but in no way have you shown why reducing it entirely is bad. All you did was point to an article where a few economist suggest that we should reduce the long term deficit but for the short while increase spending to help give growth to the economy, no where in that article do they suggest we should always have some kind of deficit, in fact they specifically said the goal should be to balance the budget.

It's the difference between taking out a loan to start a business, that you intend on fully paying off, and running constant credit card debt that you never pay the principal off of.