Comments on: Shrill Liberals 1, Social Security Slashers 0

By: mafr

mafr — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:47:48 +0000

Why should we be treated any differently than anyone in the rest of the world.

as far as the elites are concerned, we shouldn’t. They’ve just been too busy elsewhere up to now.

first they came for……

By: TruthandJustice

TruthandJustice — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:48:09 +0000

We need to send a clear message to our “alleged” representatives. Social Security is a contract ( which the Republicans view as sacrosanct when it benefits the elites) between the taxpayers and the government. This is not an entitlement – we paid for it! If there is no money in the budget for SS then there is absolutely no money for their pensions, expense accounts or pay raises nor their “single payer” health care. Cut their entitlements before our safety net!

By: TomThumb

TomThumb — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:46:57 +0000

I am with you in principle and appreciate your gracious attention to detail. Let’s not feed the Blue Dogs by giving them permission not to draw down from the trust fund in advance.

By: wmd1961

wmd1961 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:40:13 +0000

The unified budget gimmick is a big part of the problem, it’s where the scare number of “$51 Trillion in unfunded liabilities” comes from. Those liabilities were funded, then lent to the treasury to pay other expenses. Paying them back has to be done out of future tax receipts.

There’s a deep fear that those trust fund obligations will be reduced or eliminated by massive cuts in benefits. Trust fund money will begin to be needed to pay benefits in 2017. So in 8 years part of the general tax revenue stream will be dedicated to SS. Politicians are used to having SS in a surplus and having the ability to raid that surplus. In 8 years that’s no longer possible.

Frankly I don’t see how we could have avoided this. A surplus in one tax revenue stream won’t stay in cash, it will buy “safe” investments from the Treasury. And when it is getting close to paying those Treasury obligations back it’s going to force some hard budget choices - increase taxes or cut spending. Cut defense spending. Increase taxes on high earners (both FICA and income taxes).

By: LKN2

LKN2 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:23:01 +0000

Unless and until Social Security is removed from the “unified budget,” we can safely assume the politicos never intend to repay the trust fund. Therefore, we should all be marching in the street screaming for the end of the stealth income tax on labor that has been in effect for the last 26 years.

At 12.4%, without deductions, the Social Security tax is an huge burden on working people. Only the self-employed actually see the amount on their tax returns, which is probably why Washington has gotten away with this for so long. A worker earning income up to the cap is not in the 28% tax bracket, he or she is in the 40.4% tax bracket!

By: ohbytheway

ohbytheway — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:58:46 +0000

The politicians who think they can fool around with SS need to know that anyone over 65 doesn’t have a lot of life to lose. Our death train isn’t far away so we can be very unreasonable when someone tries to fool with Social Security.

By: wmd1961

wmd1961 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:58:34 +0000

I think that there are some that see the actuarial analysis and are legitimately concerned about how to keep paying benefits. Trust funds (”lock box”) money has to come from general revenue due to budget shenanigans… this makes some worry about the tax burden when benefits have to be paid out of trust funds. Then there’s the longer term issue of how to pay benefits once the trust fund runs out in 30 some years, and small changes make a big impact over the long term (compounding needs time to work - play with retirement calculators and see how $500 over 40 years compares with $2000 over 10 years). While there isn’t a crisis in Social Security now it does make some sense to think long term.

Eliminating the safety net is us projecting a wingnut fantasy. There’s been quite a bit of railing against Diamond Orszag, without noting that it fixes an immediate problem - low earner benefits don’t provide even poverty level income to beneficiaries. We really need to make the safety net at least provide poverty level benefits NOW, as in immediately. Diamond-Orszag brings minimum benefits to poverty by 2012.

Cutting high end benefits to pay for increased low end benefits is to me a worthwhile and progressive trade off. I’ve posted my prospective benefits versus those of another low income worker starting at age 69 in 2030. I’d be getting about $2340, the $14,000 a year worker gets about $780. I think raising the $780 to $1000 or more is much very worth having my benefit cut to $2000, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

By: klynn

klynn — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:33:36 +0000

Yeah! Finally I am branded a hippie!

@54:

Thanks for sharing what Galbraith said. He sounded just like Jane.

By: TomThumb

TomThumb — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:32:57 +0000

Got to go get my automobile to the inspection station . Bye.

By: TomThumb

TomThumb — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:32:23 +0000

In an other representative’s question ( I think he stood as Chair while Frank went to vote) the experts were asked if they thought that SS surplus could be used to finance the efforts of the Federal Reserve and Treasury, to buy up legacy assets and establish bank reserves.
Dr. Binder replied that in a sense that is already occurring since all revenues start out in the same pot. Dr. Taylor replied that banks are already swimming in their reserves due to fear of lending any. Galbraith’s opposition to this was firm: Do not draw on Social Security! If you want to put SS surplus to work in this meltdown, reduce payroll taxes and give more benefits to SS recipients.