AARP’s "Prepare to Care: A Resource Guide for Families" can help make the job more manageable. Here’s how to receive a free copy.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
676
Views

Re: DEMOCRATS FIGHT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

676 Views
Message 1 of 8


@jfpinlvn wrote:

There is no way that the government, either party, will reduce SS benefits other than through the process of inflation, the misrepresenting the true cost of living, as they are now in the process of doing, and minimal increases in the retirement age. This will let inflation slowly eat away the value of the payments.

 

An outright reduction would be political suicide. If they did an army of millions of seniors & disabled would descend on Washington DC with their wheel chairs, walkers, hearing aides & oxygen tanks with shotguns and rope and when they leave there would be politicians hung from expensive marble and granite buildings dangling above their limousines. The only other option is an increase in revenue (taxes) by one means or another.


Eventually, the top percentage groups will end up shouldering the burden of those whose labor made them wealthy.

He (tRump) is useless on top of the ground - he should be under it - inspiring the cabbages...
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
676
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
686
Views

Re: DEMOCRATS FIGHT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

686 Views
Message 2 of 8

There is no way that the government, either party, will reduce SS benefits other than through the process of inflation, the misrepresenting the true cost of living, as they are now in the process of doing, and minimal increases in the retirement age. This will let inflation slowly eat away the value of the payments.

 

An outright reduction would be political suicide. If they did an army of millions of seniors & disabled would descend on Washington DC with their wheel chairs, walkers, hearing aides & oxygen tanks with shotguns and rope and when they leave there would be politicians hung from expensive marble and granite buildings dangling above their limousines. The only other option is an increase in revenue (taxes) by one means or another.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
686
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
695
Views

Re: DEMOCRATS FIGHT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

695 Views
Message 3 of 8

 


@jfpinlvn wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@mandm84 wrote:

   I'm sure a few of our " well off "  far right poster's dont care for this truthful article about how easily OUR Social Security can be strengthened. No smoke and mirrors here Republican fear mongers !!!


I wonder if we could use the term "self-sufficient" as opposed to "well off"? That is important because based on the posts from those attacking the "self sufficient", they seem to be describing themselves as "dependent". Of course there are also the elitist who see their mission in life to redistribute other peoples money so as to be sure the "dependents" are dependent on them.

 

I also wonder if the "dependents" can understand that the the "self sufficient" are not merely trying to hold on to their money - there is a bigger issue involved, it is the description of our Nation. A Conservative, "self sufficient" or "dependent" does not want to see us go down the slippery slope the Dems are taking us.

 

Look at Hillary's plan for SS - take more money from the "self sufficient" while giving them nothing in return to distribute it to the "dependent". Does that sound like America, or some other system?

 

Bottom line - it is bigger than your wallet, it's about the Nation.

 

 


Bottom line - whenever it is advantageous for right wing purposes, rk9152's posts paradiastolically distort fact and reality and tell lies in support of the deliberately and maliciously corrupt Republican Party.

What's paradiastole? - Disingenuous misrepresentation of vice as a virtue.  

A long word to describe the act of "genteel" lying.

 
Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church- state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment and tax fairness.
 
No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident.
 
The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical "family values" propaganda, the Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests, and absolutist religious groups.
 
 

A paradiastolic example of some of the "logic" used in rk9152's posts would be to say, "Yes, I know it doesn't work all the time, but that is what makes it interesting"...

 

 


Not much in that that rant except that rk9152 is a genteel liar, described in tortuous words, a distorted interpretation of his post and (surprise!) a claim that the Republicans are always wrong on everything.

 

In view of present circumstances, with the queen of Democratic corruption running for the presidency, it is kinda' funny to see a lefty talking about the "maliciously corrupt Republican Party".

 

Did you have something specific to say about the topic of this thread?


Yes, since you ask - social security is a good thing that's worth fighting for and worth fighting to expand, and that I consider those who wish to in any manner reduce or do away with it as enemies of my country and the good that it stands for.

He (tRump) is useless on top of the ground - he should be under it - inspiring the cabbages...
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
695
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
699
Views

Re: DEMOCRATS FIGHT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

699 Views
Message 4 of 8

@alferdpacker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@mandm84 wrote:

   I'm sure a few of our " well off "  far right poster's dont care for this truthful article about how easily OUR Social Security can be strengthened. No smoke and mirrors here Republican fear mongers !!!


I wonder if we could use the term "self-sufficient" as opposed to "well off"? That is important because based on the posts from those attacking the "self sufficient", they seem to be describing themselves as "dependent". Of course there are also the elitist who see their mission in life to redistribute other peoples money so as to be sure the "dependents" are dependent on them.

 

I also wonder if the "dependents" can understand that the the "self sufficient" are not merely trying to hold on to their money - there is a bigger issue involved, it is the description of our Nation. A Conservative, "self sufficient" or "dependent" does not want to see us go down the slippery slope the Dems are taking us.

 

Look at Hillary's plan for SS - take more money from the "self sufficient" while giving them nothing in return to distribute it to the "dependent". Does that sound like America, or some other system?

 

Bottom line - it is bigger than your wallet, it's about the Nation.

 

 


Bottom line - whenever it is advantageous for right wing purposes, rk9152's posts paradiastolically distort fact and reality and tell lies in support of the deliberately and maliciously corrupt Republican Party.

What's paradiastole? - Disingenuous misrepresentation of vice as a virtue.  

A long word to describe the act of "genteel" lying.

 
Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church- state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment and tax fairness.
 
No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident.
 
The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical "family values" propaganda, the Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests, and absolutist religious groups.
 
 

A paradiastolic example of some of the "logic" used in rk9152's posts would be to say, "Yes, I know it doesn't work all the time, but that is what makes it interesting"...

 

 


Not much in that that rant except that rk9152 is a genteel liar, described in tortuous words, a distorted interpretation of his post and (surprise!) a claim that the Republicans are always wrong on everything.

 

In view of present circumstances, with the queen of Democratic corruption running for the presidency, it is kinda' funny to see a lefty talking about the "maliciously corrupt Republican Party".

 

Did you have something specific to say about the topic of this thread?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
699
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
721
Views

Re: DEMOCRATS FIGHT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

721 Views
Message 5 of 8

@rk9152 wrote:

@mandm84 wrote:

   I'm sure a few of our " well off "  far right poster's dont care for this truthful article about how easily OUR Social Security can be strengthened. No smoke and mirrors here Republican fear mongers !!!


I wonder if we could use the term "self-sufficient" as opposed to "well off"? That is important because based on the posts from those attacking the "self sufficient", they seem to be describing themselves as "dependent". Of course there are also the elitist who see their mission in life to redistribute other peoples money so as to be sure the "dependents" are dependent on them.

 

I also wonder if the "dependents" can understand that the the "self sufficient" are not merely trying to hold on to their money - there is a bigger issue involved, it is the description of our Nation. A Conservative, "self sufficient" or "dependent" does not want to see us go down the slippery slope the Dems are taking us.

 

Look at Hillary's plan for SS - take more money from the "self sufficient" while giving them nothing in return to distribute it to the "dependent". Does that sound like America, or some other system?

 

Bottom line - it is bigger than your wallet, it's about the Nation.

 

 


Bottom line - whenever it is advantageous for right wing purposes, rk9152's posts paradiastolically distort fact and reality and tell lies in support of the deliberately and maliciously corrupt Republican Party.

What's paradiastole? - Disingenuous misrepresentation of vice as a virtue.  

A long word to describe the act of "genteel" lying.

 
Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church- state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment and tax fairness.
 
No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident.
 
The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical "family values" propaganda, the Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests, and absolutist religious groups.
 
 

A paradiastolic example of some of the "logic" used in rk9152's posts would be to say, "Yes, I know it doesn't work all the time, but that is what makes it interesting"...

 

 

He (tRump) is useless on top of the ground - he should be under it - inspiring the cabbages...
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
721
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
731
Views

Re: DEMOCRATS FIGHT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

731 Views
Message 6 of 8

@mandm84 wrote:

   I'm sure a few of our " well off "  far right poster's dont care for this truthful article about how easily OUR Social Security can be strengthened. No smoke and mirrors here Republican fear mongers !!!


I wonder if we could use the term "self-sufficient" as opposed to "well off"? That is important because based on the posts from those attacking the "self sufficient", they seem to be describing themselves as "dependent". Of course there are also the elitist who see their mission in life to redistribute other peoples money so as to be sure the "dependents" are dependent on them.

 

I also wonder if the "dependents" can understand that the the "self sufficient" are not merely trying to hold on to their money - there is a bigger issue involved, it is the description of our Nation. A Conservative, "self sufficient" or "dependent" does not want to see us go down the slippery slope the Dems are taking us.

 

Look at Hillary's plan for SS - take more money from the "self sufficient" while giving them nothing in return to distribute it to the "dependent". Does that sound like America, or some other system?

 

Bottom line - it is bigger than your wallet, it's about the Nation.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
731
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
741
Views

Re: DEMOCRATS FIGHT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

741 Views
Message 7 of 8

   I'm sure a few of our " well off "  far right poster's dont care for this truthful article about how easily OUR Social Security can be strengthened. No smoke and mirrors here Republican fear mongers !!!

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
741
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
794
Views
7
Replies

DEMOCRATS FIGHT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

794 Views
Message 8 of 8

Why Social Security reform is on the ballot this year. Reuters

© AP (2)The future of Social Security is on the ballot this year – not that you could tell by the U.S. presidential debates, or by any other aspect of this rancorous, sensational election.
But 67 percent of registered voters rank Social Security as a “very important” part of their voting decision this year – just behind the economy, terrorism, gun policy and immigration, according to the Pew Research Center.

 

And so it should be. Social Security is the most important retirement benefit for most American workers – it provides at least half of the income for 48 percent of retired couples, and for 71 percent of single seniors, according to the Social Security Administration. Also, Social Security benefits kept 22.1 million seniors, working-age adults and children out of poverty in 2015 according to an analysis of Census data released this week by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
But Social Security’s retirement and disability trust funds are forecast to be depleted in 2034. At that point, benefits would be cut an estimated 21 percent, unless Congress takes action.
Meanwhile, a consensus is developing that an expansion of Social Security benefits should be added to the reform agenda to address our growing retirement security crisis. Solvency and expansion can both be addressed by raising new revenue. Options include raising the cap on income subject to payroll taxes, raising payroll tax rates very gradually over a 10-year period or even allowing Social Security to invest a portion of the trust fund in equities.
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican rival Donald Trump faced just one question about Social Security during their recent debates – and the framing was wrong.
Moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News asked the candidates how they would reform the program in light of its role as a key driver of the nation’s debt. Wallace had it backwards – Social Security actually lends money to the federal government, not the other way around.
Surplus trust fund assets are invested in a special type of Treasury note backed by the government’s full faith and credit. So Social Security is no more a driver of the debt than other holders of government bonds (China comes to mind). The Social Security trust fund is a lender to a government that spends much more than it levies in taxes. When the trust fund runs dry in 2034, there is no mechanism available to make up the funding gap from general revenue.
Wallace asked if Trump would make a deal to save Social Security (and Medicare) that included both tax increases and benefit cuts. Trump did not answer, instead pivoting to a critique of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Clinton, focusing on Social Security, reiterated her support for raising revenue through higher payroll taxes on the wealthy, fighting any benefit cuts and supporting targeted increases for low-income workers and women.
Her response is in line with what voters want. Another Pew poll, conducted back in March, found that 71 percent of registered voters oppose benefit cuts. That figure does not change much when you filter respondents by party affiliation or which candidates they supported in the primaries. Other polling suggests a majority of Americans would favor higher payroll taxes – on the wealthy or on themselves – to support the program.
Party platform signals
Aside from the two candidates, where would the two major political parties take us on Social Security reform after the Nov. 8 election? The party platforms adopted at this year’s conventions are instructive.
The Republican platform states that solvency should be restored without tax increases. That is a de facto call for benefit cuts, because there are only two ways to solve Social Security’s financial problems: either you cut benefits or increase revenue.
The platform also states that Republicans “believe in the power of markets to create wealth and to help secure the future of our Social Security system.” That is a clear call for shifting Social Security to a system of private accounts, as advocated by President George W. Bush in 2005.
Meanwhile, the Democratic platform says this: “We will fight every effort to cut, privatize, or weaken Social Security, including attempts to raise the retirement age, diminish benefits by cutting cost-of-living adjustments, or reducing earned benefits.” The platform document goes on to call for benefit expansion, at least for “women who are widowed or took time out of the workforce to care for their children, aging parents, or ailing family members.”
It also calls for “exploration of alternatives” to Social Security’s current annual cost-of-living adjustment that would be more “equitable” for seniors.
What might happen if Clinton wins, as expected? Odds are good that she would tackle Social Security reform sometime in a first or second term, but much will depend on which party controls the two chambers of Congress.
Republicans can be expected to continue their push for a higher retirement age, less generous cost-of-living adjustments and some form of means-tested benefits. Democratic control of the Senate and House of Representatives would create a historic opportunity for legislative reform to restore Social Security’s long-range solvency and expand benefits.
If the Democrats fall short of that, their challenge will be to keep the debate about Social Security reform separate from phony debt arguments, and away from back room deals that do not require legislators to go on the record in favor of cutting, sustaining or expanding Social Security. In that scenario, lawmakers would have to explain to voters why they oppose putting some extra benefits in their pockets. Or, worse – why they are OK with allowing Social Security to keep veering toward a huge benefit cut in 2034?
The polling data tells us that expansion will win. Not that you could tell it in this particular election season.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
794
Views
7
Replies