I think this is an issue that plays against Trump this time around, even if his "hands off" approach seemed to help in 2016. Thanks to inflation, the GOP and its conservative base is back to thinking about fiscal responsibility again, I don't think there's as much appetite for throwing fiscal caution to the wind again like there was for Trump's first election.
You miss the point. It would be the most equitable, just solution. It is not impossible, it’s just that the odds are about the same as winning $500,000,000 lottery😎
“Have the vacation YOU DESERVE!” We are a nation of soulless, hypocritical, entitled babies.
And I didn’t pretend that it would be easy…I said it would be ‘just.’…and if the solution is not just, I resent it. These reforms would not only not negatively affect anyone win an annual income below $250,000-$400,000 (because they don’t need it, and instead will pass more wealth to their entitled progeny.
During Reagan, S.S. insolvency was at one point mere months away. So 6, 8, or 10 years seems enough time to fix it. Raising the FICA rate by a tiny amount and ditching the income cap might well solve the insolvency question for a couple of generations.
Social Security and Medicare are not on the chopping block, because politicians don't want to commit job suicide. They hate it, they grumble a lot, but they can't even get rid of Obamacare, and there's no way they have the stones to take on seniors.
I'll go to Mara-largo and give Trump a rim job if I'm wrong.
The reason why Republicans have been taken over by a strong populist revolt is because the party elite continues to push unpopular policy solutions that hurt working Americans. Republican policy continues to be unpopular and cannot gain majority support. The elites are in denial about that fact, so instead of doing more popular things, these elites have pandered to extremism and enabled a rage machine to stoke hatred of out groups that reached its highest pitch on Jan 6th.
Paul Ryan talks about Democrats demagoguery on the issue, but that’s dishonest. It’s not demagoguery to challenge Republicans’ policy solutions and their overblown concern trolling of the medicare solvency problem. Republicans are less Cassandra and more Chicken Little. There is clearly more than one way to tackle the issue that does not mean a reduction in benefits or eligibility. Among other ideas, we could raise the income cap, crack down on tax cheats, target entitlement fraud, repeal tax loopholes, etc. The Republican solution to healthcare is another example that was deeply unpopular, yet Republicans continued to ram it down voters throats and unlike Obamacare, won’t get more popular with time. Alas, the Republican elite have also learned nothing and will make another go at these policies. I’m not even mentioning the Supreme Court swinging far to the right.
The continued warnings about our fiscal crisis imo overshadow other real national security concerns. For example, are we prepared for a large confrontation with authoritarian encroachment? Do we have any plans to improve domestic material and manufacturing capability? Do we have all allies onside (not yet)? How will we deal with labor shortages? There are so many questions. It the meantime the Republican Party elite will continue is zombie policy agenda and stoking the anti-others rage.
My point is that Social Security benefits should have been means-tested from the outset. Ever since it’s inception, wealthy recipients with no need for supplemental income have used it, as in my own mother’s case, to pay for higher education for their grandkids, thereby exacerbating/perpetuating the vast income inequality in America. That is definitely not what the original proponents of a social insurance program had intended, but in our selfish society was necessary to gain support for the legislation.
What should the wealth/income line be? Personally, I envision a formula through which benefits would be reduced on a sliding scale to zero. It should never be seen as a replacement for retirement plans, but rather as a safety net.
Joe, I agree something needs to be done for the future, and no cap on SS from one's salary would be a start, maybe. Also, I disagree with the "entitlements" connotation that the Social Security and Medicare i receive monthly are free - I worked and paid for them for 50 years.
Among the threats to SS is the number of jobs (especially well paying manufacturing ones) that have been eliminated by technology and globalization. A steel worker or machinist job contributed a lot more to the system than a barista or a "would you like fries with that" position now does.
Or you could raise taxes and end the income tap but quelle horror, how will the rich be able to afford more yachts and bribe politicians for massive tax payer funded stadiums for their sports teams
Non scientific, anecdotal observations (I’m 73) based on those I know, of those on disability, none, I repeat, none, have any disability. The only disability I see is the disability to say ‘no’ to those that have no ‘right’ to it.
Nancy, I respectfully disagree. In Canada, where I am also a citizen, it’s correctly called Sociail zinsurance. Just because they had to do it to get it passed doesn’t make it right. My mother never worked outside the home, didn’t need it, so gave it to her grandkids for college…affirmative action for wealthy white folks.
The reported only alluded to the fact the the status of social security and medicare is not about the debt. So the GOP is using debt fears to scare folks into believing that changing social security and medicare is about the debt. The GOP's base of wealthy folks simply would like to crush both programs.
We should raise taxes (reverse years of tax cuts for the well to do) also make sure that corporations pay their fair share.
Then we should reform social security - but by increasing the revenue. Not making the retirement age any higher. Nor by raising the eligibility age for medicare.
While folks are living longer, in fact many folks are far less able to sustain a full time career as they age. I retired at 70 but was already slowed down physically (even coming to the office was a challenge).
Want to get rid of the income cap to salvage Social Security? Start telling Baby Boomers that their benefits will be cut. Or that they will have to work years longer to qualify. The Boomers vote, and probably more so as they age. That’s a huge demographic. Maybe even Fox News, which follows its viewership (according to Amanda Caroenter’s Bulward article today), will demand the removal of the cap. Win/win - the burden falls more on the wealthy who are able to pay.
Don’t ask me what effects that might have 30 years hence after the Boomers are gone.
I think this is an issue that plays against Trump this time around, even if his "hands off" approach seemed to help in 2016. Thanks to inflation, the GOP and its conservative base is back to thinking about fiscal responsibility again, I don't think there's as much appetite for throwing fiscal caution to the wind again like there was for Trump's first election.
You miss the point. It would be the most equitable, just solution. It is not impossible, it’s just that the odds are about the same as winning $500,000,000 lottery😎
I never said that it would be enacted…I said it’s the straightforward, honest, and just solution.
Roger, and that’s this country’s problem:
“Have the vacation YOU DESERVE!” We are a nation of soulless, hypocritical, entitled babies.
And I didn’t pretend that it would be easy…I said it would be ‘just.’…and if the solution is not just, I resent it. These reforms would not only not negatively affect anyone win an annual income below $250,000-$400,000 (because they don’t need it, and instead will pass more wealth to their entitled progeny.
During Reagan, S.S. insolvency was at one point mere months away. So 6, 8, or 10 years seems enough time to fix it. Raising the FICA rate by a tiny amount and ditching the income cap might well solve the insolvency question for a couple of generations.
Social Security and Medicare are not on the chopping block, because politicians don't want to commit job suicide. They hate it, they grumble a lot, but they can't even get rid of Obamacare, and there's no way they have the stones to take on seniors.
I'll go to Mara-largo and give Trump a rim job if I'm wrong.
The reason why Republicans have been taken over by a strong populist revolt is because the party elite continues to push unpopular policy solutions that hurt working Americans. Republican policy continues to be unpopular and cannot gain majority support. The elites are in denial about that fact, so instead of doing more popular things, these elites have pandered to extremism and enabled a rage machine to stoke hatred of out groups that reached its highest pitch on Jan 6th.
Paul Ryan talks about Democrats demagoguery on the issue, but that’s dishonest. It’s not demagoguery to challenge Republicans’ policy solutions and their overblown concern trolling of the medicare solvency problem. Republicans are less Cassandra and more Chicken Little. There is clearly more than one way to tackle the issue that does not mean a reduction in benefits or eligibility. Among other ideas, we could raise the income cap, crack down on tax cheats, target entitlement fraud, repeal tax loopholes, etc. The Republican solution to healthcare is another example that was deeply unpopular, yet Republicans continued to ram it down voters throats and unlike Obamacare, won’t get more popular with time. Alas, the Republican elite have also learned nothing and will make another go at these policies. I’m not even mentioning the Supreme Court swinging far to the right.
The continued warnings about our fiscal crisis imo overshadow other real national security concerns. For example, are we prepared for a large confrontation with authoritarian encroachment? Do we have any plans to improve domestic material and manufacturing capability? Do we have all allies onside (not yet)? How will we deal with labor shortages? There are so many questions. It the meantime the Republican Party elite will continue is zombie policy agenda and stoking the anti-others rage.
Hi Jim,
My point is that Social Security benefits should have been means-tested from the outset. Ever since it’s inception, wealthy recipients with no need for supplemental income have used it, as in my own mother’s case, to pay for higher education for their grandkids, thereby exacerbating/perpetuating the vast income inequality in America. That is definitely not what the original proponents of a social insurance program had intended, but in our selfish society was necessary to gain support for the legislation.
What should the wealth/income line be? Personally, I envision a formula through which benefits would be reduced on a sliding scale to zero. It should never be seen as a replacement for retirement plans, but rather as a safety net.
Joe, I agree something needs to be done for the future, and no cap on SS from one's salary would be a start, maybe. Also, I disagree with the "entitlements" connotation that the Social Security and Medicare i receive monthly are free - I worked and paid for them for 50 years.
Among the threats to SS is the number of jobs (especially well paying manufacturing ones) that have been eliminated by technology and globalization. A steel worker or machinist job contributed a lot more to the system than a barista or a "would you like fries with that" position now does.
Or you could raise taxes and end the income tap but quelle horror, how will the rich be able to afford more yachts and bribe politicians for massive tax payer funded stadiums for their sports teams
Non scientific, anecdotal observations (I’m 73) based on those I know, of those on disability, none, I repeat, none, have any disability. The only disability I see is the disability to say ‘no’ to those that have no ‘right’ to it.
Nancy, I respectfully disagree. In Canada, where I am also a citizen, it’s correctly called Sociail zinsurance. Just because they had to do it to get it passed doesn’t make it right. My mother never worked outside the home, didn’t need it, so gave it to her grandkids for college…affirmative action for wealthy white folks.
The reported only alluded to the fact the the status of social security and medicare is not about the debt. So the GOP is using debt fears to scare folks into believing that changing social security and medicare is about the debt. The GOP's base of wealthy folks simply would like to crush both programs.
We should raise taxes (reverse years of tax cuts for the well to do) also make sure that corporations pay their fair share.
Then we should reform social security - but by increasing the revenue. Not making the retirement age any higher. Nor by raising the eligibility age for medicare.
While folks are living longer, in fact many folks are far less able to sustain a full time career as they age. I retired at 70 but was already slowed down physically (even coming to the office was a challenge).
Gosh!...If the equation taught in business school is true:
BalanceEnd = BalanceBeginning + (MoneyIn - MoneyOut).
Paul Ryan is right since increasing MoneyIn violates the religious rights of the First Church of Republicanism.
Want to get rid of the income cap to salvage Social Security? Start telling Baby Boomers that their benefits will be cut. Or that they will have to work years longer to qualify. The Boomers vote, and probably more so as they age. That’s a huge demographic. Maybe even Fox News, which follows its viewership (according to Amanda Caroenter’s Bulward article today), will demand the removal of the cap. Win/win - the burden falls more on the wealthy who are able to pay.
Don’t ask me what effects that might have 30 years hence after the Boomers are gone.