Social Security Cuts

[nunboy]

Ummm I don't think I get your point. I go pay for Advil when I get a headache.

I was making a parallel for you. You are railing away at peoples decisions that end up costing money. IE. having your knee reconstructed because you were to physical. = Having your knee reconstructed because you are too damn fat.

Since we are denying people care for problems that they caused themselves.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And here's more Drum:

 

"This is a bit of an obvious point, but I want to make it anyway: pretty much every liberal, even those who generally support the idea of adopting chained CPI as a more accurate measure of inflation, should be opposed to President Obama's proposal to adopt chained CPI.

 

The reason is simple: chained CPI represents a cut in the growth rate of Social Security benefits. It's arguably something that's worth accepting as part of a larger bargain that would cut benefits a bit and raise taxes a bit in order to improve Social Security's finances, but it makes no sense on its own. Social Security is separate from the rest of the federal budget, and its benefits should never be horse-traded away for miscellaneous changes elsewhere.

 

If Republicans are ever in a mood to consider a serious Social Security deal that's designed to improve its solvency in a balanced way, that's fine. I'm ready to listen. But that's not on the table. Until it is, chained CPI shouldn't be on the table either."

[Legacy Fan]

"In particular—and please excuse the wild guess here—I imagine that most people who have a serious jones for cutting federal spending are really only interested in cutting spending on poor people."

 

Don't forget about minorities! We hate minorities too!

 

I mean wow. Just wow.

 

All I'm asking is the federal govt to tighten its belt a little. And suggesting that some tightening be done on (for whatever reason) the seemingly "untouchable" class.

Why haven't you answered my question about the logic behind why this is so evil?

[Westside Steve]

Legacy you know exactly why that is.

The problem is not that we want more and don't want to pay taxes, it's that the majority of less productive citizens want more and demands someone else pay the taxes.

That's the strategy.

And it's humorous that heck bitches about hidebound Republicans and then posts: Kevin Drum.

 

Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice.

But that doesn't sell votes....

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

And that's the trouble. Obamao will spend whatever more taxes we pay. He'll spend it on anything

 

that endears him and the national dems to their leftist base.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Legacy you know exactly why that is.

The problem is not that we want more and don't want to pay taxes, it's that the majority of less productive citizens want more and demands someone else pay the taxes.

That's the strategy.

And it's humorous that heck bitches about hidebound Republicans and then posts: Kevin Drum.

 

Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice.

But that doesn't sell votes....

 

WSS

 

This is a classic of the Browns Board genre. It really is. This is a thread about making tough choices on Social Security, and about how Americans almost always avoid the tough choices and instead demand to have someone else's benefits cut, but not theirs. We used one of the most often recommended remedies, chained CPI (as Krauthammer said yesterday, if we can't even agree to do chained CPI, something that just about every commission on entitlement reform has recommended, we're hopeless), the one the president just put on the table publicly, as a starting point. I put up a chart from the CPO that scores all of available policy choices we have and how effective they are at cutting benefits or raising revenue. I asked which ones you guys would prefer, since you're all on the page that the deficit is growing too large and entitlements need to be cut. And not one of you gave a real answer.

 

Leg then demanded that benefits stay at their current level, and that spending on "programs for zeros" be cut instead. I asked him to explain, and he created a scenario that is not practical, possible, or doable. We went back and forth on why that is, how SS is separate from the regular budget, and then Leg said I wouldn't "explain the logic behind why it's ok to cut workers benefits, but not non-workers."

 

Eventually seeing that his idea really isn't a solution that exists in the real world, Leg then posted a bunch stories from his personal experience dealing with poor people, and all the bad decisions they make.

 

Then I posted a quote from Kevin Drum that seemed particularly appropriate because it fit the thread perfect: most people who are loudest about reducing the deficit and the debt are not serious about doing it, but instead are really talking about cutting programs for poor people. Because we just watched exactly that in this thread. After years of listening to everyone on the board screech about spending and deficits and debt ...not one of you chimed in with an actual proposal to fix Social Security. But we did get lots of idea about how to cut money for poor people!

 

Yep, Drum was sure wrong about that!

 

And then, to top it off, Steve then brought it home with yet another post steering it back to his old saw/wheelhouse: lazy people vote for more benefits, and the Democrats' strategy is to give it to them.

 

And scene.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And Steve, Kevin Drum isn't even acceptable to you? One of the most respected liberal commentators on the right, known for his fairness and use of charts, graphs, and evidence? He's "hidebound"? Either you know nothing of his work, or you simply don't accept that liberal political/economic opinions can or should exist. Or maybe, just maybe, you might want to think about how often you break out your "hidebound/acolyte" smear.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, you talked about shared sacrifice. Well, what does that look like for you in terms of Social Security reform?

[Westside Steve]

Oh cripe we just heard Ed Schultz and Bernie Sanders spout the same thing.

" We don't care if it would help or not we don't care whether or not it's the right thing to do. We must stand firm as Democrats!"

 

 

Oh by the way yes you're exactly right that is the Democrats strategy. It works.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

That's what Leg said too - we shouldn't cut benefits. That's what lots of people are saying.

 

But first of all, no one cares what Ed Schultz says. And Bernie Sanders didn't say what you said he said. Bernie Sanders isn't even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders thinks we shouldn't cut benefits.

 

Try and stick to the topic. I already know your perverted idea of Democratic politics. What's shared sacrifice look like to you in terms of Social Security?

[Westside Steve]

Plus you really have noticed the president's campaign for the last five years, haven't you?

Please don't tell me you haven't understood that it's almost 75 percent tax the rich tax the rich tax the rich.

 

I don't have access to Lexis Nexis, I'm sure everything works that well now, but I'd like to see how many hits for fair share or doing their part comes up.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

[Westside Steve]

Yes that is what leg said. So what? What I say is that I'm happy to give up a little bit if everybody's on the same page.

 

So you're telling me I mis understood Bernie Sanders and he's all for it?

 

Wss

[heckofajobbrownie]

What do you think shared sacrifice means in terms of Social Security reform?

 

"Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice."

 

Lay it out.

[Westside Steve]

What do you think shared sacrifice means in terms of Social Security reform?

 

"Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice."

I'll pretend I'm back in college and make up at an answer I know I will please the professor.

Why sharedd sacrifice, sir, is where the most fortunate among us are happy to give a little bit more to make society, you know, more equal and stuff right?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Stay on target, stay on target...

 

Seriously, what would be the "across the board shared sacrifice" that would please you? Because the Chained CPI is across the board sacrifice that affects everyone equally in terms of dollars, but whose impact is more weighted to the lower income people who depend on SS income more than wealthier people do, wouldn't you agree? But Chained CPI doesn't get us all of the way there anyway.

 

So tell me what would be the "shared sacrifice plan" beyond that?

[Westside Steve]

So why not just be honest and call it welfare and be done with it?

Seriously rich guys you still have to pay but you aren't getting a return. Poor guys you don't have to pay but you are getting a return.

Sort of takes the "well its my money" response out of the game doesn't it?

 

Plus you start your longevity chart in the 80's? Yeah I'm sure nothing changed between 1940 and 1983...

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

How far are you going to go to avoid the question? You're just assuming stuff. I haven't mentioned a thing about wanting to strip the benefits of the wealthy. I just noted that means testing is one of the options, and often that doesn't mean stripping their benefits. It means reducing them.

 

What do you mean by "across the board shared sacrifice"? You said you'd be for tax increases and benefit reductions if it included across the board shared sacrifice. Well, what would you include?

[heckofajobbrownie]

So why not just be honest and call it welfare and be done with it?

Seriously rich guys you still have to pay but you aren't getting a return. Poor guys you don't have to pay but you are getting a return.

WSS

 

And what is this all about? Rich people pay into SS, but poor people don't? What world is this?

[Legacy Fan]

You keep barking at me like I don't know SS is a different part of the budget. I've already explained that I'm well aware of this and you shuck & jive from answering my question. I reiterate that the federal govt is notorious for paying for left pocket expenditures from the right pocket and you continue to respond like i'm saying "because Elvis told me so."

 

*You* bring up Medicaid, and I give examples (based on actual scientific research -not anecdotal) where cuts in Medicaid could be made. Even though there might be shedding if tears from the "constituents".

 

So one final time: why is cutting from welfare so god damned evil but cutting from SS totally ok?

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's not. I don't know why you think I'm making that argument. I'm making the argument that your plan is pulled out of your ass and not workable, because it is.

 

I'm suggesting that coming up with a number in your head with which to cut the entirety of federal welfare spending, in this case "back to 2008 levels", is not a plan to keep Social Security benefits at their current levels. And your actual scientific research on cutting Medicaid was where? I just saw your professional frustrations with the poor patients you see in your dentist's office.

 

And there are few things funnier on this board than the idiotic belief that the base of the Democratic Party is shiftless poor people. Yes, guys. 65 million Americans cast their vote for Obama, and pretty much all of them were the Obamaphone lady. You've really got your finger on the pulse of the nation. It's like if I kept insisting that the base of the Republican Party was made up of snakehandlers and faith healers.

[Westside Steve]

How far are you going to go to avoid the question? You're just assuming stuff. I haven't mentioned a thing about wanting to strip the benefits of the wealthy. I just noted that means testing is one of the options, and often that doesn't mean stripping their benefits. It means reducing them.

 

What do you mean by "across the board shared sacrifice"? You said you'd be for tax increases and benefit reductions if it included across the board shared sacrifice. Well, what would you include?

So you want to bicker over the term stripping and reducing ,which is actually stripping? Come on.

 

You yourself said that this plant of the Presidents wasn't something you opposed automatically.

Then you suggested the president proposed it because it's the right thing to do.

Then you went on a tirade about splitting the Republicans or something blah blah blah.

And then you said means tested and raising the retirement age; those three tactics would fix things remember?

 

But now your balk because Kevin Ed and Bernie don't like it.

 

But rather than being honest you ask a stupid question.

"Well Steve, what's your detailed economic plan and I want specific numbers!"

 

Tell you what since I know yours let's just ....

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Dude, are you serious? Just stop. I'm posting all sorts of stuff. That doesn't mean I'm endorsing it. I'm posting opinions, options, charts. Giving different sides. The Drum stuff was to show you that, yes, the president's base doesn't like it. You posted about Ed Schultz and Bernie Sanders for the same reason. Does that mean you endorse what they say? I posted past Republican quotes about supporting Chained CPI. I posted a Krauthammer quote to show what he thinks. It's called "a discussion."

 

Now answer the question. What do you want to do to make the sacrifice shared?

 

Try discussing the issue and not me so this doesn't dissolve into the same old boring shit. Stay on target.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Seriously, one might start getting the impression that neither have you have thought about any of this past your gut reaction, because neither of you have done anything but go back to your old saws. Leg went on a rant about poor people's teeth and their bad decisions (okay) and you're trying to make this about the same old "poor voters want shit, blah blah."

 

What do you want to do about Social Security? It's not like we're making laws here. Just answer the fucking question. Jesus.

 

What kind of shared sacrifice do you want to see? And what do you mean "poor people don't pay but they get benefits." Where did that come from?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here. I'll even give you responses to all of this.

 

So you want to bicker over the term stripping and reducing ,which is actually stripping? Come on.

I'm not bickering about anything. Look at the chart. It breaks down different types of means testing. Some take more benefits away from the wealthy. Some take fewer. Some take all. I didn't endorse any of them. I was simply pointing out the different types of policy options to Leg, who was making some strange ones up.

 

Here's what I wrote:

 

"If you want to keep benefits at their current level, which I think is preferable, think about other ways you can do it. You can reduce or remove benefits from people who are so wealthy the additional $14K a year doesn't matter to them. That's one way. You can raise the retirement age a year. That doesn't get you very far, and has the problems Steve and I were discussing, but it gets you about 1/6th of the way there.

 

Problem is, even if you did all of those things, you still have to raise someone's taxes if you want to keep benefits at their current level. We could talk about whose taxes you might raise in that scenario. But let's not wish a real problem away because we're frustrated with the way Washington works, or how it's explained to you."

 

Clearly, I'm suggesting options. It's really not that hard to follow.

 

You yourself said that this plant of the Presidents wasn't something you opposed automatically.

 

That's right. I don't. I also don't view it as the President's plan, as this is an idea that's been kicking around for decades. Hell, we were talking about all of this shit in college.

 

Then you suggested the president proposed it because it's the right thing to do.

 

Don't remember doing that. I think it's the right thing to address long term debt. How we address it is another story. I've also written that I'm not sure chained CPI is the best way.

 

Like here:

 

"And also ignoring my posts, where I say that I'm not sure chained CPI/cutting people's benefits is the best idea either, but that I'd considerate it because there aren't any good options. The other options are forms of means testing, raising retirement age, and raising taxes. None of the options are good."

 

Then you went on a tirade about splitting the Republicans or something blah blah blah.

 

Yes, discussions of political strategy in a political forum. What was i thinking?

 

And then you said means tested and raising the retirement age; those three tactics would fix things remember?

 

Yes, I said those were policy option available to us. Yes. So what? See above.

 

But now your balk because Kevin Ed and Bernie don't like it.

 

Haha. Pathetic.

 

But rather than being honest you ask a stupid question. "Well Steve, what's your detailed economic plan and I want specific numbers!"

 

Why is it stupid? I'm not asking you to put out some actuarial table. You've got the policy options in front of you. You said you would be for what I would be for - tweaks to the benefits and the taxes in order to put the program on sound footing - if there was "shared sacrifice." Then you posted something about the poor not paying and receiving benefits anyway, which is wrong and confusing.

 

So which of those proposals is most "shared sacrifice" to you? And explain your post about the poor not paying into SS but getting benefits anyway.

[Legacy Fan]

It's not. I don't know why you think I'm making that argument. I'm making the argument that your plan is pulled out of your ass and not workable, because it is.

 

I'm suggesting that coming up with a number in your head with which to cut the entirety of federal welfare spending, in this case "back to 2008 levels", is not a plan to keep Social Security benefits at their current levels. And your actual scientific research on cutting Medicaid was where? I just saw your professional frustrations with the poor patients you see in your dentist's office.

 

And there are few things funnier on this board than the idiotic belief that the base of the Democratic Party is shiftless poor people. Yes, guys. 65 million Americans cast their vote for Obama, and pretty much all of them were the Obamaphone lady. You've really got your finger on the pulse of the nation. It's like if I kept insisting that the base of the Republican Party was made up of snakehandlers and faith healers.

You gave me the 90 billion number like it was some wild and crazy physical challenge. I showed you where it could be pulled from. Easily.

 

From 2008- 2011 welfare spending increased 32%. Did cost of living go up 30%? Did wages around the country increase that amount in that time? (No for both).

 

The 32% was roughly $190 bil (and I said this at least twice)

Going back to 2008 levels weren't necessary to reach your $90.

 

Point to me where a program that didn't exist in 2007 is now irreplaceable and untouchable. What happened in 2008 that necessitated a 30% increase in entitlement spending? All plans are pulled out of asses - doesn't mean it's unreasonable. (Except where you still won't answer why we can't cut from "the base"

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'll try one more time and then I'm going to give up: you can't fund Social Security this way, and no one is proposing to, and no one would. Secondly, your plan, even it was feasible, which it isn't, only provides funds for SS for one year. You'd have to do this every year, arbitrarily robbing from Medicaid funding, among other programs, to transfer the money from the general fund into the SS trust fund. It's simply not a workable plan. It doesn't create a new funding source for to supply SS recipients with their benefits. It's a brainfart. Stop farting.

 

Next, the reason welfare spending jumped from 2008 to 2011 - and the reason The Daily Caller picks 2008 as a starting point - is because all spending on the poor jumped during that time period. Because we had an enormous recession, and more people lost their jobs, and lost their health care, and more people qualified for food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, etc., so that's the primary reason why that spending went up. That's what "necessitated" the increases in welfare spending. Because more people qualify for it when you lose a few million jobs in the economy. It's not even really a secret. You should know this.

 

These are pretty obvious answers. The fact that you're touting them as if this was Obama creating billions worth in new spending on "the base" shows you're playing from that crank deck. The fact that you continue to think you can play Charles Grodin's accountant in Dave and simply draw up cuts to all of this spending and transplant that savings to Social Security to cover the gap is just ...wow. I figured you'd given up on this and we could move on, but I guess not.

 

But let's try. You stated you wanted to keep SS benefits at their current level, which means you're in favor of keeping the system we have and shoring it up. This is certainly doable. To do that you can either create additional revenue through existing means, like raising the cap on FICA taxes, or creating a donut hole and phasing it back in at a certain income level, or you can create a new, dedicated source of revenue. Or you can reduce benefits at the top end of the income spectrum. Or you can do a little bit of both. You can try anything you like. Make some tough choices.

 

Just don't give us your "cut welfare spending to 2008 levels" stuff.

[heckofajobbrownie]

For instance, my ideal plan would be to create a carbon tax and use the revenue that raises to lower payroll taxes. The problem with that plan would be that, unlike payroll taxes, which have a very predictable income stream, the revenue stream for a carbon tax would fluctuate over the long term and you'd have to keep adjusting the tax in order to fund SS benefits.

 

I'd prefer to keep SS benefits where they are now, though I'm not against chained CPI if it comes as part of a larger deficit reduction package that addresses the long term fiscal problem. But I'd also note that contrary to "out of control spending" refrain you hear from the right, the administration has done a fairly good job getting the short-term deficit under control.

 

You might recall everyone wanted Simpson-Bowles to be the standard for deficit reduction. Steve wanted it made into law. Well, it added up to $4.1 trillion in deficit reduction. And since 2010 the Obama administration has signed $3.6 trillion into law.

 

And here's the look at the short-term deficit picture:

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

"John McCain's campaign has gone even further, suggesting that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either," Obama said in a rarely viewed video that was posted online.

[calfoxwc]

McCain is a rhino goof, and Obamao is a corrupt, marxist, Napoleonic despot.

 

Where do you get the idea, that every welfare person is a recent victim of that recession?

 

Seriously? A lot of people voted for Obamao, true. But millions of them are his base -

 

those who want more handouts because that's their subculture.

 

Welfare rolls also went up dramatically because Obamao got the work requirement cancelled.

 

Carbon tax? Yeah, a lower payroll tax so you can be taxed for cows farting, and everything else?

 

Unbelievable.