Social Security Defenders Circling the Wagons

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Let's put more billions into WAR !
And, I don't care which war you want to talk about. Pick a country!
It makes "more sense" to do that than support your own, who have already paid into a 'disfunctional Social Security system'.
But which is more disfunctional? A War Machine, or Social Security?
They have both become wars! The first kills the need for the other ! How disfunctinal is that?
Ahhh... but War comes first, disguised in the name of "security" !

LOUIS of FL 9:59AM September 15, 2010

I facilitated a session for Americans Discuss Social Security...back in 1998! The most popular remedy was eliminating the wage cap. After all, it didn't affect them! That's what policymakers have to keep in mind. Those in the highest brackets get the least return of their investment...not a bad thing. In fact, not collecting SS should be a badge of honor for the rich, but they dutifully collect it even if they don't need that. How about increasing the wage cap, maybe even eliminating it, but *reducing* the payroll tax in so far that the outcome is still higher revenue into SS? A lower payroll tax would benefit lower wage earners as well as their employers. Add to this a reasonable increase in the full retirement age, to 70, and a review and modernization of rules that presently allows an ex-spouse to collect at the rate of their deceased spouse even if they haven't been married to them for decades while their most-recent spouse who fell a few days short of 10 years gets zero (full disclosure: I am a relative of all parties to this situation). A full reform would also require education in investments in secondary schools. SS is easy to modernize, Medicare is not. That's where the primary focus should be.

FD of WA 1:21AM July 28, 2010

#1- Social Security is not a "freebie". You and I, unless you work for the government and don't get the benefits anyway, have paid for it and are still paying for it. It has carried a surplus that allows irresponsible presidents to spend more than they tax their entire term.(and you vote them back into office!). That includes socalled "conservatives", "smaller government" advocates; shame on them! You vote them back into office. Is that crazy?
#2- The projected future SS shortfall (planned to be limited by the "trust fund") would be a tolerable expense if we had a balanced budget. The budget is the responsibility of congress and the administration, both elected by you and me. Why do you keep electing people who spend more than they tax? Because every chance you feel a pinch in your pocketbook, you whine to the government for help!
#3- So it turns out, you are the problem!
# 4 I suggest; Quit whining about big government , welfare, illegals, and any other guy who is ruining your day! Mend your ways. Elect people who will spend what is needed and tax what is needed.

Contr of CO 4:43PM July 27, 2010

Unwilling to pay for these wondrous programs yourselves, you have instead taxed corporations and the 'rich' and then blame them for not paying even more -- deluding yourselves in the process that the 'poor' and the 'middle class' didn't get their taxes cut (hard to cut below 'zero', but we've even done that with increased deductions and the earned income credit -- something we used to call 'welfare'). And, of course, AARP (liberal wealth redistribution organization that it is) supports taxing higher income people even more by increasing their social security taxes -- there's more potential membership dues to be had by pandering to the masses.
So now you'll increase taxes on the 'rich' again -- only problem being that most of them are the small business owners who now will hire even fewer people.
Enjoy the unemployment -- but wait; there's more! We can just vote ourselves more weeks of unemployment coverage! Wow! This money pot has no bottom!
When will you tire of this foolish, self-defeating game?
As for reforming social security: Can we at least increase the surviving spouse age above 60? Can we at least raise the 'early retirement' age above 62? Can we steadily increase the full retirement age another few years (but do it over the next decade -- how many decades to people who don't plan anyway need to plan for a later retirement age?? Give me a break!
Or maybe we should just cross our fingers and close our eyes. What the heck -- it's worked so far!

waldo of RI 10:23AM July 27, 2010

As the bumper sticker says: "You can't fix 'stupid'."
"The program" called social security doesn't have ANY money because the federal government has borrowed all of it and spent all of it. They use the money to make the deficit 'seem' smaller than it really is. To repay social security, the government now needs to borrow even more or tax its citizens even more than it already does.
Of course, this is what 'progressives' have always sought -- to make social programs so popular that the voters won't allow reforms, let alone cuts.
And when costs go down and no COLA is due, we just throw a $250 bonus at people so they feel better.
The problem is, they have done that with so many programs, we're closing in on $1,000,000,000,000.00 EVERY YEAR, just in interest payments on the existing debt. But since we can't pay that each year, the debt (and interest payments) for the next year are even higher. One person here suggests cutting the defense budget in half to solve the problem. But even entirely eliminating ALL of defense would STILL LEAVE A DEFICIT EVERY YEAR. People, even now, are missing how big this problem is!
So, congrats to my fellow junkies -- the voters unwilling to say 'no' to all the freebies they vote for themselves, year after year, decade after decade. Not satisfied with putting it off on just our children and grandchildren, you've continued abusing your drug of choice and now personally own the crisis of your own making.
Unwilling to pay for these wondrous programs yourselves, you have instead taxed corporations and the 'rich' and then blame them for not paying even more -- deluding yourselves in the process that the 'poor' and the 'middle class' didn't get their taxes cut (hard to cut below 'zero', but we've even done th

of 10:20AM July 27, 2010

We are supposed to consider cutting SS benefits to Americans who paid taxes into what was supposed to be a "trust fund"
But God forbid we cut welfare or medical benefits to illegal aliens.

Richard Fitzgerald of IN 12:19PM July 26, 2010

Reducing the COLA is fine but the politicians, Federal & State will not reduce theirs. Why are they better than retired people who worked all their lives?
The politicians created the deficit and left health care providers and pharms get out of hand but want us to take the brunt of it. Cap the prices on pharms, docs, and hospitals, and especially the "for PROFIT" nursing homes.

Gary Keller of PA 10:23AM July 21, 2010

$ufficient spin will lead many people to support cutting Social Security payments to individuals -- but not Medicare and Medicaid welfare to the medical-industrial complex that profits from public largesse at every stop on the doctor, hospital, pharmaceutical, nursing home, Wall Street loop.
The previous administration used a corporate script -- old people starving to pay for meds -- to push Part D through Congress for the ongoing benefit of Pharma. If the current administration in whatever guise cuts Social Security but not inflated Medicare and Medicaid spending that rewards profiteers, this society will be even poorer as taxpayers and as caring humans.

JoaToa of FL 6:41PM July 20, 2010

It's a painful change for some, if you were not healthy or developed poor health due to cancer, raising early or full would be hard on those individuals. So it will be important for parents to teach their children to live a very simple life, save save save, and be prepared you never know what will happen.

Janine of UT 5:37PM July 20, 2010

The funding of Social Security is not inevitable either way. It's a matter of priorities. Do we want to have a bunch of poor old people living on the streets?

Hilary of CA 4:40PM July 20, 2010