Question for Everyone

[dazzleman]

Just get rid of the cap on SS taxes (currently $90,000), and limit benefits for wealthy retirees. There's no need for cuts or delaying retirement.

Why are you Republicans so opposed to this? Someday I'll probably be making over $90,000 a year, and I'm not opposed.

Because to sever the relationship between payment in, and benefits, will make social security a welfare program rather than a pension program.  Democrats set the program up the way it is so that it would never be perceived as a welfare program, and therefore not be vulnerable to dismemberment when people get tired of paying for other people to get benefits.

[Ebowed]

I would prefer that Iraq went perfectly from now on. I fear that it will not.

I will not hope that people die just so my party can win a few stupid elections.

Agree 100%

[The Duke]

John,

For a number of reasons, the solvency (or lack there of) of the Social Security Trust funds is difficult to precisely project as a number of factors are involved.

The bottom line is that unless significant changes are made, even under the most favorable reasonable projections, all of the funds are going to be insolvent by 2050.

The stone-walling by Democrats in Congress to any change in Social Security except for raising taxes and increasing benefits is that when the system reaches crisis state, Democrats are going to be blamed for preventing  reforms that might save the system.

It seems to me that a compromise (where everyone gets something, both good and bad) would at least buy some time.

Such a compromise would include:

a.) Raising the amount of income on which Social Security 'contributions' can be assessed (thereby pleasing the Democrats in Congress).

b.) Slightly raising the retirement eligibilty age (which would reflect the original intent of the law).

c.) Changing the formula for the COLA to more accurately project real inflation for recepients (it is currently overstated),

d.) Allowing a small proportion of the 'contribution' to be invested in individual accounts under rules similiar to those which apply to investments of insurance companies.

I was referring to people who have said to me on this Forum that my using 2017 as a date for expenditures exceeding revnues was dishonest and that I was a liar trying to scare puppies into the voting booth etc.  This week, a report came out from the trustees saying that I was right to use 2017, and I've been looking for an excuse to crack back at the Democrats who were so vicious in their comments about social security.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thanks for the clarification.

The position of those who deny that the system is in serious trouble is really bizarre.

In many ways, the current system is a Ponzi scheme, which is going to collapse unless significantly restructured.

[Wakie]

I have always wanted what is best for my country.  I'd easily take victory in Iraq any day.

I disagree with the other side, but when they are in power I still want America to succeed in all of its endeavors.  I don't think we can say the same for them though.  Wasn't it Henry Hyde who said he trusted Hamas more than he trusted his own government.

[dazzleman]

I have always wanted what is best for my country.  I'd easily take victory in Iraq any day.

I disagree with the other side, but when they are in power I still want America to succeed in all of its endeavors.  I don't think we can say the same for them though.  Wasn't it Henry Hyde who said he trusted Hamas more than he trusted his own government.

If Henry Hyde said that, that's pretty bad.  That reminds me of the far left Democrats and feminists who prefer the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to President Bush.

[ian]

The second option because even with the loss of war victims' lives, it still beats the amount of lives the USA will lose if our SS is privatized, health care isn't changed, and other liberal economic programs suffer under the current admin or Repubs in general.

[No more McShame]

I prefer victory in Iraq and over the terrorists even if it leads to complacency among the American public and they do to the Republicans what the British did to Churchill after World War II.

[Cashcow]

I hope Iraq goes well, and it's looking good at the moment. However, my general opposition to the war has not wavered, and unfortunately I think the administration's decision will come back to haunt us.