| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| When it comes down to this "Social Security is going broke" meme from the right, why isn't the thought of increasing incoming revenues raised? Certainly it would change the picture greatly and unquestionably ensure the viability of the program. Just lifting the existing cap on income would immediately resolve the problem long into the future. Better yet, why not also tap into capital gains income? Actually, there are many avenues to solve the "Social Security is going broke" meme, but greed always gets in the way. Why is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| swchandler wrote: | | When it comes down to this "Social Security is going broke" meme from the right, why isn't the thought of increasing incoming revenues raised? Certainly it would change the picture greatly and unquestionably ensure the viability of the program. Just lifting the existing cap on income would immediately resolve the problem long into the future. Better yet, why not also tap into capital gains income? Actually, there are many avenues to solve the "Social Security is going broke" meme, but greed always gets in the way. Why is that? |
This is a good read: 5 Huge Myths About Social Security
The rabid righties here shouldn't bother with the article -- facts and quantitative data are irrelevant to them.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KC--it is always a good idea to follow the money. There are legitimate criticisms of fixed benefit pensions, and there are definitely places where California needs to reform pension rates. I would be happy to have an actual discussion with anyone on the right who actually demonstrates any knowledge. But...
There is also the simple fact that big money attracts big corruption. A friend of mine who had worked in the UC Chancellor's office told me about the scandal at Calpers:
| Quote: | April 24, 2012 (The Sacramento Bee, Calif.) - -The U.S. government sued the two key figures in the CalPERS bribery scandal Monday, targeting the pension fund's former chief executive and a businessman who earned millions in finder's fees from CalPERS investment deals.
The Securities and Exchange Commission's lawsuit steps up the pressure on former CalPERS CEO Fred Buenrostro and his longtime friend, Lake Tahoe businessman Alfred Villalobos. It also contains new details about how the alleged fraud was carried out.
According to the suit, the pair cobbled together a series of phony letters bearing the pension fund's logo. The SEC said the letters were used to dupe Villalobos' top client, Wall Street powerhouse Apollo Global Management, into paying him fees totaling $20 million. |
long before it came out. Of course, Calpers was also victimized by the deregulation of banks that allowed junk bonds to be bundled and sold as class A securities. To the credit of Holder and Obama, they have finally prosecuted the civil case on this, and Calpers will get back some of their money.
I don't think that Bush was corrupt, or ran a pay to play operation. Instead, those who are recite certain pat phrases about deregulation and privatization. The financial world is complicated enough, and politicians distracted with many other issues and trying to make sure that those who contribute to their campaigns get fair deals, that slimy things happen in the corner. But the systematic deregulation to make it easier to do slimy things is a Republican specialty.
Minor fixes take care of both Medicare and Social Security. Democrats have proposed them. Republicans have fought them--and then claim that they are going broke. Ralk radio parrots what the Koch's and other slime peddlers from the far right tell them. Some, and Techno is frequently one of these, buy it without doing any checking on the other side of the story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't speak for Techno, but in his early posts he said he was taking time to post here solely because he wanted to hear the other side.
Often his posts contain what might seem inflammatory statements. Other posters make the assumption he is committed wholly to those political ideas when he does not say that at all.
It aint black and white here. Most libs are financial conservatives on this board and these conservatives who are pissed at welfare will join them handing out food to hungry hopeless people when the time comes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gee, what would you guys do w/o having us to psychoanalyze, kinda nice that you care in a sort of back handed way tho.
If we didn't exist, this place would have the excitement of a bridge club. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | ...this place would have the excitement of a bridge club. |
...and that would be too much of an intellectual challenge for you, Mr. Turdy.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some citizen tweeted this great summary of the past 5 years into a TV news show:
"I don't understand how "Obama" and "care" belong within the same sentence." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. Fick-shun wrote: | Some citizen tweeted this great summary of the past 5 years into a TV news show:
"I don't understand how "Obama" and "care" belong within the same sentence." |
Do a little research, Mikey, and you'll understand.
The term was coined by the haters on the right.
Sometimes it is so much fun to watch you shoot yourself in the foot.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does INSOLVENT make everyone feel better rather than "go bust" regarding SS? Gee, no one is arguing about Medicare going "bust", or insolvent?
For some, the shortfall in funding for SS in 20 years apparently isn't a big deal, but for those in their 40's right now, they may see it differently.
Obviously, liberals and conservatives will paint different pictures of what we consider to be the future, neither of which are likely to be 100% honest or correct.
Reality is that neither program will be able to provide their current level of support in 20 or less years unless changes are made. That's my point. Discussing what needs to be done to fix the problem is the logical debate, not denying that there is a problem or using semantics to attack an opinion.
swchandler said: | Quote: | | When it comes down to this "Social Security is going broke" meme from the right, why isn't the thought of increasing incoming revenues raised? Certainly it would change the picture greatly and unquestionably ensure the viability of the program. Just lifting the existing cap on income would immediately resolve the problem long into the future. Better yet, why not also tap into capital gains income? Actually, there are many avenues to solve the "Social Security is going broke" meme, but greed always gets in the way. Why is that? |
Good to see someone offering ideas for solutions rather than the typical personal, disparaging remarks from Mac. Thanks Chandler. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me make my point again, more slowly. Techno, if you had started a discussion point with some background from your perspective of the future problems, depending on projections, of Social Security and Medicare, and this statement, you might have gotten a different response:
| Quote: | | ...neither program will be able to provide their current level of support in 20 or less years unless changes are made. |
That might actually invite a discussion about what Democrats propose, and what Republicans propose. Is there any common ground, or are these programs just be used to stir up the base? But here's how you started:
| Quote: | | Both programs will go bust in the not too distant future. At least Bush and Ryan had plans, I don't recall any liberal plans to solve the problems. |
That was a partisan broadside, alleging that Bush and Ryan had plans, but liberals did not.
Bush's "plan" was to privatize Social Security. It would not have changed any of the fiscal aspects, it would have just given the investment responsibility to the private sector and had the public sector wash their hands of any responsibility for the aging poor. Ryan's plans were worse; the tax cuts would have exacerbated the debt and the growing inequality gap.
As both Chandler and I said, lifting the cap on income would fix the problems of Social Security. Here's a news story on a Democrat--a liberal by your terms--that has proposed exactly that. But the Republicans who have signed Grover Norquist's no tax pledge will not even let it be voted on. Now what party doesn't actually have a plan?
| Quote: | This week, however, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) put forward a reform package that goes in the opposite direction, while still financially securing the program’s trust fund for roughly the next seven decades. The Washington Post’s Dylan Matthews laid out the details:
The Begich bill would lift the current payroll tax cap, which exempts wages in excess of a certain amount ($110,100 this year) from the tax. In turn, it would give high earners, who would pay more, additional benefits upon retirement, just as benefits increase as wages do for workers below the cap. […]
It also increases benefits across-the-board. While Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin adopt a stingier “chained CPI” measure for inflation, Begich adopts “CPI-E,” or a measure that specifically captures inflation in goods that seniors buy.
Due to deteriorated health and other considerations, goods seniors buy tend to be more expensive than those younger people purchase. Begich’s CPI-E change would mean, effectively, a 4.5 percent benefit increase for the program’s beneficiaries, including not just seniors but their designated survivors and disabled Americans as well.
The Congressional Research Service ran the numbers back in 2010 and concluded that eliminating the payroll tax cap — while also paying out the new benefits to wealthier Americans in accordance with their new taxes — would eliminate 95 percent of the trust fund’s shortfall over the next 75 years. |
Those pesky numbers. Do you wonder why I described you as not well read? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
