Look folks, politics aside, we might have to cut SS benefits 30 years from now...

[cthulu2016]

...if we don't cut them now.

And as for why cutting them now is better than maybe cutting them in 30 years... well, it just is!

The security of my retirement depends on this. (I sunk my life savings into Purina stock.)



Seriously, though...

Meanwhile, an aging population will eventually (over the course of the next 20 years) cause the cost of paying Social Security benefits to rise from its current 4.8 percent of G.D.P. to about 6 percent of G.D.P. To give you some perspective, that’s a significantly smaller increase than the rise in defense spending since 2001, which Washington certainly didn’t consider a crisis, or even a reason to rethink some of the Bush tax cuts.

So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.

It would be easy to dismiss this bait-and-switch as obvious nonsense, except for one thing: many influential people — including Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the president’s deficit commission — are peddling this nonsense.

And having invented a crisis, what do Social Security’s attackers want to do? They don’t propose cutting benefits to current retirees; invariably the plan is, instead, to cut benefits many years in the future. So think about it this way: In order to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. O.K.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=0

[leftstreet]

1. Let's privatize SS instead

The GOP might be on the right track here

Let's let private enterprise take over the reins. Look how cheap MP3 players are!

[patrice]

10. Why don't we instead talk about de-coupling the means by which PUBLIC debt is financed from

Wall Street? i.e. The Federal Reserve controls both PRIVATE stocks and the PUBLIC bond market, through interest rates, and WE are the single biggest financier of our own debt, so if we ourselves controlled, not only what the prices of the bonds are, AND what interest they earn, we could incentivize government spending our own ways, including things such as co - operatives, couldn't we?, which co-operatives are the biggest bang there is for each dollar spent doing the people's work.

Please tell me how I'm wrong about this.

We are ALWAYS talking about their "solutions" and never our own. WHY is that?

[kenny blankenship]

22. That's next. But first-

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)

But FIRST they have to weaken it with a thousand cuts, so people despair of its future, so the people will drop their psychological attachment and investment in it, and so people are no longer sure what it is, or how important it is to them, since the constant chipping away and constant fear mongering against SS means they can't say with any confidence what it will be in the future. A guarantee that is constantly under revision, always being renegotiated and subject to changes ISN'T A GUARANTEE AT ALL. They have to turn it into another "one of those things the government fucked up". THEN they can cut it up and throw it to their friendly Wall St. patrons at Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan, et al.

Reagan didn't directly attack the existence of federal regulatory agencies his patrons hated when he could expect partisan and popular resistance. He went after them indirectly. He DEFUNDED them so they couldn't do their job anymore, or couldn't do it well without botch-ups and episodes of what would look to the public like a uniform and routine incompetence. Making regulatory agencies useless, even in the eyes of their beneficiaries and backers, would be Step One to getting rid of them altogether, and accomplish in the meantime much of the Free Market-ey "good" of abolishing them, without the up-front political warfare that would require. If Reagan had wanted to go after Social Security, he would have pushed a payroll tax moratorium, so that SS would go into deficit and become part of the furor over the national debt. Then he would degrade the benefits it paid. He would make sure that SS which previously was untouchable and a fixed certainty of American life, was always on the table in any future negotiations. It would be appear constantly diminishing, always subject to revision and more cutting. Eventually people who previously defended Social Security as though with their lives would be convinced it was hopeless and just give up on it. It will have become, in the popular mind, another one of those things "Government just can't do."

[still_one]

26. No offense, but bullshit. I guess you were not around in 2008

Privatization will be the end of social security, no thank you. Don't experiment with a system that works

[leftstreet]

35. Guess I should have used sarcasm tag

sry

[still_one]

37. I'm sorry I should have realized it

[EC]

71. And how many private pension plans have

gone broke (from raiding by brass)and had to be paid by us the taxpayers?

[patrice]

2. One does wonder how this rhetoric looks to younger generations. Link please? I need to read up.

[democrattotheend]

40. As a member of a younger generation

I sometimes feel like both sides are equally selfish and uncaring toward us. The GOP wants to dismantle the system so it won't be there for us when we retire. Many on the left seem not to care whether there is any money left in the SS trust fund when we retire as long as they get the benefits they are entitled to.

For so many years, politicians have punted on doing anything to shore up SS and Medicare for us and even our parents because they were more concerned about losing political support from seniors. So they just kicked the can down the road and figured they would be retired from public office by the time anything really needed to be done, even if that meant more draconian cuts or tax hikes for people my age or even 10 years older.

I don't like the chained CPI, and I think raising the cap is a much better option, so please do not accuse me of wanting your grandmother to eat cat food, because I don't. But even though I don't like his proposed solution, I am glad that we have a young president who owes his re-election in large part to younger voters and is willing to tackle this now, so that we don't face far more draconian cuts or payroll tax hikes in the future. The longer they do nothing, the more draconian cuts will have to be, and I don't think it's fair to us and to our children to ask no sacrifices of the Boomers and kick the can down the road to us.

[doc03]

55. George W Bush said in his first campaign we were overtaxed

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

and he was going to give us our money back and for every 3 dollars 2 dollars would be in tax cuts and 1 dollar would go into SS. I guess that was to counter Al Gore's putting the SS trust fund in a lock-box. Well after the election we know what happened Bush gave all 3 dollars back to the rich.

[democrattotheend]

57. Gore was dead on

We should have done what he suggested and put the money in a lockbox. That's what the 1980's raise in payroll taxes was supposed to do: provide a surplus for when Boomers retired and there were fewer workers per retiree. It makes my blood boil that Bush squandered all of that to give tax cuts to his rich cronies.

[davekriss]

59. FYI, if absolutely nothing were done..

...then social security would still be able to pay approximately 75-80% of benefits after 2032 or thereabouts for as far as the eye can see. And that was based on the assumption of 1.8% GDP growth, about 60% of the 20th century average.

Does your generation believe you'll be any less productive than previous generations? Does your generation have less political will? Then don't let the ruling class rob all of us of one of the few social safety nets we have in this harsh, cold *United* States.

[democrattotheend]

61. But 25% is a pretty draconian cut

If SS beneficiaries face a sudden 25% cut in 2032, that's much more drastic and devastating than a gradual decrease in COLA adjustments.

I am not saying chained CPI is not painful and it is not my preferred way of shoring up Social Security. But if we do nothing before 2032, my father will face a huge, sudden cut in his benefits when he is 81 years old (and my mother when she is 75). That seems worse to me than having my grandfather receive slightly lower cost of living increases now. To be fair, my grandfather is not poor, but my understanding is that the president's CPI proposal would protect the poorest recipients and even increase their benefits a little by setting a floor of 150% of the poverty line for all SS recipients.

[davekriss]

64. Again, that is based on GDP growth of 1.8%

At 3.1%, the historical average, social security benefits can actually be increased. Why would we make cuts now when, more likely, the system will have more funds than it needs over the next 70-75 years?

The issue is the ruling class and their media monkeys don't want to pay for redemption of the Treasury Bonds purchased with the surplus FICA taxes we've all been paying since 1983.

Why should working Americans take the hit? Why not the predatory robber barons? Over the past 30 years they successfully engineered a redistribution of wealth into their pockets. As a result, we once again have the inequalities of the Guilded Age and Roaring Twenties. Don't let them do it! Stand your ground, fellow citizen!

[patrice]

68. Right on! & I think one route that would help would be to stop talking exclusively in terms of

"their" solutions.

Seems like we spend more time fighting about them than we do figuring out what we want.

I, for one, am pretty interested by the fact that something over 40% of our debt is financed by US, so why don't we decide for ourselves how to pay that down AND provide for the commonweal? One reason we don't is because we're always talking about them and fighting amongst ourselves about what THEY are saying.

I'm going to put more effort into understanding this thing about how the Federal Reserve sets credit rates not only on PRIVATE securities, but also on PUBLIC debt/bonds. It seems sooo obvious to me that the Fed can, therefore, play one off against the other.

If the people decided what interest rate they want to pay to finance their own debt, wouldn't that incentivize wise spending and economic efficiencies that actually work FOR the people, especially when you have tools like some of the provisions of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, like, for example, the Patient Centered Outcomes & Research Institute.

I have to admit that I may be too optimistic, because of how Medicare development, e.g. HR 676 Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, could be a driver for other kinds of needed reform, because of how it triangulates what Social Security retirees need most, health care, with the PP&ACA and Medicare, which could then leverage related areas Pharma (and incidentally medical cannabis), Labor, local entrepreneurship, alternative energy development etc. etc. etc.

All of that said, I think the current price for the CPI, what the rich will have to pay to get a CPI fixed on the rest of us, is WAY TOO LOW.

Honestly, we should strike at the root of this thing & that's the Federal Reserve.

[jeff47]

81. As members of a younger generation, we have to remember there was a lot of history before us

People have been predicting the imminent demise of Social Security for decades. The cut-off date is always a ways into the future, and always moves off further into the future. Despite no "fixes" being passed.

We're now in another such state - people are claiming Social Security might not be able to pay full benefits far in the future, and based that claim on some.....let's say "interesting" assumptions about our economic future.

In 10 years, that 2030's date will be a 2040's date. And then a 2050's date. And so on. Because these same people have been trying to destroy the program since the 1930s, and will keep trying to destroy it when we're old enough to collect it.

[Romulox]

90. Ghastly. Vampiric. A disgrace. nt

[democrattotheend]

3. I think it's better

Because the cuts 30 years from now would have to be a lot more drastic than if they begin gradually today.

I would rather they raise the cap than cut benefits, but regardless of how they do it, I am in favor of beginning to shore up SS now, so that the pain can be spread across generations rather than falling drastically on those depending on SS in 2036, when benefits would have to be slashed 14% if nothing is done before then.

[Siwsan]

5. I would MUCH rather they raise the cap

I never understood why there was a cap, in the first place.

[davekriss]

12. The cap corresponds to a commensurate cap in benefits

[democrattotheend]

15. There is a cap because benefits are capped

Which seems fair to me. Many liberals oppose means testing because they want to keep SS as a social insurance program rather than a welfare program. If the cap were removed completely it would be hard to argue that SS was not a welfare program, as the amount rich people paid in taxes would drastically outweigh the benefits they received.

However, the problem is that the cap has not kept pace with inflation. A few decades ago, the cap covered 90% of earned income. Now there is significantly more income above the cap. So there is a very strong case for raising the cap to keep pace.

Eliminating it entirely would not be wise, IMO, because it would essentially turn SS into a redistribution program and make it a bullseye target for the rich and powerful.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot claim that SS is a social insurance program rather than a welfare program and at the same time argue for eliminating the cap, which would turn it into a welfare program because the cost to some workers would greatly outweigh the benefits.

[Siwsan]

27. Thanks for that explanation

It really does help me understand, much better. I will amend to raising the cap, and not eliminating it, AND still want the top incomes start paying taxes at the same rate I do.

Again, though, I really do appreciate the thoughtful explanation.

[Hoyt]

16. Agree. I'm betting that 20/30 years a 8% or so cumulative "cut" from Chained-CPI will look good.

In other words, we'll wish some minor tweaks had been made long before.

If I though our economy might return to the days of old, that young folks would have better chances at jobs, that unemployment benefits would be sufficient, that there would not be protections for those on lower end of SS, etc., I'd be against making any change now. If by some stroke of luck, the economy booms again, they can reinstate any loss in SS -- well, unless folks overreact and vote Democrats out for doing what was necessary (or fail to vote).

Besides, if the economy does get better because of some tweaks, we'll all be better off. All those rosey long-term predictions for SS are predicated on our economy returning to normal. But, it's a different world now.

I do think raising the cap is a good idea. But, it alone is not sufficient.

I don't get any pleasure saying all this. But it is what I think. If I'm wrong, some future Democrats can say that "jeeez there is such a big surplus in social security now, we can reinstate the relatively minor reductions that have accumulated from Chained-CPI." I'll adapt, and be happy with the narrowing of donut hole we got past few years that will save me money, changes in Medicare, poor getting chance at insurance and jobs, unemployment benefit expansion, and similar things.

[RebelOne]

4. Well, I will not be here in 30 years,

so I would prefer them to be cut then. I am a social security recipient and 74 years old and I need these benefits now.

[Hoyt]

19. Wow, pass it on to next generation. If we think it is going to happen, why do that?

[democrattotheend]

20. At least you admit it

Sadly, I think yours is the attitude held by many here, who are more concerned about their own benefits than whether there is anything left for us younger workers who are paying in today but have little hopes of seeing a penny from SS when we retire.

I understand that you are dependent on SS and I don't want to be insensitive, but it's pretty selfish to say that you would rather them cut benefits in 30 years because you won't be here. How can you expect younger voters to care about SS if you don't care if their benefits are cut, as long as you get yours?

[RebelOne]

44. Why should I not be worried about surviving now?

I should starve now to make sure future generations don't starve?

[democrattotheend]

48. I never said you should starve

But yeah, maybe you should also care whether future generations starve even more.

[bitchkitty]

51. Do you have any idea of what it's like to struggle?

Do you know what it's like to eat substandard food in the winter so you can pay your light bill? Do you know what it's like to have to stand for hours in line to get energy assistance in the winter, because you simply cannot afford both medicine and heat?

My attitude is that I want to survive on decent food and stay warm in the winter. I don't get manicures, I don't buy clothes, I don't drink or do drugs, I don't go to clubs, I don't go to movies, I do not eat in restaurants. I don't shop unless it's something I have to have, and I only buy it in a store unless Goodwill doesn't have it. I am much luckier than many my age and social position, but I cannot be any more frugal than I am now without stopping eating entirely.

Sorry you don't like my attitude, or the attitude of countless others like me who might even be contemplating suicide at the prospect of having to pull in our belts, when our belts are on the last hole.

So you can take your solution and YOUR attitude and you know what you can do with them.

[democrattotheend]

52. Not to that degree

I live on a pretty tight budget but I will admit that I have never worried about starving or being out of a home. So I apologize if I sounded insensitive.

The point I was trying to make is that seniors are not the only ones who struggle, and in fact, statistically they are the least likely age group to be struggling. So I think those who claim to be progressive, even those who are struggling, have an obligation to care about whether there is money left in the trust fund when today's single mother who is struggling to raise 2 kids on a minimum wage from which payroll taxes are deducted retires.

I don't want to minimize anyone's struggle, but I take offense with the attitude that it doesn't matter whether future generations face draconian cuts as long as those who are struggling today don't. Members of my generation will arguably have it harder than today's seniors trying to earn a living and save for retirement in a world where employers view their workers as completely expendable, fewer permanent jobs with benefits exist, and defined benefit pensions are almost non-existent.

So IMO, the best solution is to protect those who are struggling now while asking wealthier workers and retirees who are not struggling to pay a little more to keep the system solvent. And the president's proposal for chained CPI would do to an extent by setting a floor for SS benefits at 150% of the poverty line, which I think would be a slight increase for the poorest beneficiaries.

[RebelOne]

54. Thank you. I couldn't have said it better. n/t

[Hoyt]

76. I'm sorry, the younger folks are in essence paying our benefits. We have to consider them.

They have it tough too.

I'm not for cutting benefits for those who can barely gey by. But I'm not for screwing the younger generation either. That is just wrong on so many levels.

Our generation paid our parents' benefits, but there were not as many retirees then and the economy was expanding and providing full employment in most years. That is not the case anymore, and might not be for a long time if ever.

We can, and should, take some from wealthy, but there are limits to that.

[bitchkitty]

78. How are we screwing the younger generation?

That's a teabagger talking point. The only things REALLY screwing the younger generation are the obscenely rich who don't want to pay their fair share, and the military industrial complex. Have a look at our goddamned defense budget and get back to me.

[Hoyt]

80. Actually, it's not a Tbag talking point. A poster right here said cut the next generations benefits

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:32 AM - Edit history (1)

ours. That's just wrong.

I agree, cut the defense budget in half.

But, in short term, you have to something about millions who make a living off that. Take a place like Huntville, Alabama.

This is much more complex than some acknowledge. The changes that have occurred in recent years are profound, and leaders like g war bush made them much worse. Unfortunately, you can't get it all back from them and war profiteers. I trust Obama to navigate through this, but we are all going to have to sacrifice to some degree to keep the poorest from suffering any.

[bitchkitty]

84. So you're saying, it will hurt people too much to cut the budget

set aside for drones and bombs and soldiers, so we should fuck the elderly and the disabled. They can't exactly defend themselves.

Gotcha. And fuck you and your "this is complex."

[Hoyt]

85. Cut it all is OK with me, but it's a drop in the bucket. As to your last line, have a good life.

[bitchkitty]

86. If you get your way, I and countless others will have no life,

much less a good one.

[Skittles]

77. you know it, bk

thank you for speaking out

[In_The_Wind]

23. It's unlikely that I'll be here in 30 years.

My husband and I are both social security recipients.
We've already cut our expenses to the bone. This will hurt.

[Romulox]

91. By the same token, *I* don't live off of SS, so cut away!

Er, right?

[ColesCountyDem]

6. How about we do this instead?

Lift the income cap today, and tomorrow morning SS will become solvent for eternity, or as close to eternity as anyone now living will need to consider.

[SammyWinstonJack]

63. That would be a tax increase on the wealthy and we CAN'T have that!

[kentuck]

7. how many Baby boomers will be alive?

They will only be about 90 yrs old...

[MannyGoldstein]

8. I know that your tongue is in your cheek, but

so that other readers are aware.... SS is probably fine for at least 75 years. The reports of it needing to be cut earlier are based on Timmy Geithner's cooked numbers.

[patrice]

13. Okay, so where is that 30 year figure coming from? Shouldn't we go after that source?

[jeff47]

82. It's coming from the same math that produced the 2010 figure

And before that, the 2000 figure. And before that, the 1992 figure. And before that, the 1974 figure. And so on.

There have been people claiming Social Security is doomed for decades. They keep being wrong. Because they aren't warning about a catastrophe, they're lying to destroy the program.

[NuttyFluffers]

9. if only satire worked so strongly in our world...

Colbert Report is about the best there is, and still it has trouble with people believing it as truth, and reality trumping even the jokes.

the stupid, and the denials, they just aren't that funny anymore.

the "I Told You So" Bus needs to do its rounds again to shut up the cheerleaders.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

18. Colbert is a genius, but yeah, supposedly RWers think he's really one of them. What kills me is that

they would want to be associated with him if he were for real! He shows them to be as truly awful as they truly are.

[davekriss]

11. I Don't Agree

The shortfall models assume a GDP growth rate of between 1.8% and 2.5%. The historical growth rate has been 3.1%. At anything higher than 2.5%, social security remains fully capable of paying 100% CPI-U based benefits after the Social Security Trust Fund is depleted. At 3% it is in significant surplus.

The present argument is a dodge. The ruling class does not want their taxes to increase, nor military expenditures to decline (which mostly benefits them), to pay the cost of redeeming the Special Treasury Bonds in the Trust Fund. It is not that the "trust fund has been raided" nor the IOU's "are only paper", it is an intention of avoiding their (the ruling class') obligation to the rest of us, which is to fund the redemption of the bonds. The obligation was agreed to when the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission were put into effect by Ronald Reagan in 1983. Anyone who lets the ruling class wriggle out of their obligations is either uniformed, a coward, or both.

It is an attempt at class theft, and our bought and paid for political class is only too willing to play a reverse Robinhood. If we let them!

[bhikkhu]

24. World GDP growth has been slowing since the 70's

...so its not a very good argument to use old or unrealistically averaged growth numbers, projected into the future. The 1-2% we have now is actually pretty good, all things considered.

But, with that said, a stable population and a stable economy can still provide for the retirement of its elderly, even when they are a larger percentage of the populations. There are a few ways to demonstrate that, but the easiest is by the efficiencies and technological advances that currently allow a far smaller manufacturing labor force to produce far more that past generations. And a far smaller agricultural labor force produces, every year, a massive food surplus. Its not things that are lacking, regardless of growth and demographics, its fair distribution.

[HiPointDem]

31. "Its not things that are lacking, regardless of growth and demographics, its fair distribution." +1

[davekriss]

56. Yup!

The problem is maldistribution of the wealth we collectively create. I absolutely agree with that.

On your point about slowing GDP growth. If you discount the Great Recession, then growth retains a pretty steady slope (past 75 years at 3.1% - no classic economic reason to presume growth will slow to 1.8%).

Having said that, continuous growth continues the rapacious degredation of the environment and exploitation of almost all people. Given physical limits (e.g. oil depletion), it is not sustainable. And it shouldn't be sustained. But until we as a (global) society reorganize ourselves into more fair and sustainable structures, I abhor any attempt to take from the many to bolster and fortify the few. They can pry my CPI-U growing social security check from my cold, dead hands!

(I am more than a decade away from retirement, btw.)

[The Wielding Truth]

14. Hahahahaha... you have a dry sense of humor. We need to raise revenue and protect it all. Done.

[L0oniX]

17. Who's all for fucking over our parents and grandparents? Raise yer hand!

Who's all for starvation and cat food? Who's for making health care for the privileged only? Let's be more predatory and help the disaster economic vultures and give praise those who rip off everyone to become rich. Yea rah rah American Idol! This country has become full of sociopaths. When a country looses its humanity it will descend into barbarity.

[democrattotheend]

21. Not me, but I'm not for f*cking over my generation and our children either

Which some Boomers sadly seem to care little about, as long as they get their benefits.

[L0oniX]

25. ...the benefits they paid for.

[democrattotheend]

29. As are we

By the time we retire we will have paid as much if not more for our benefits as the current retirees.

[SammyWinstonJack]

65. Baby Boomer bashing on DU. How original!

Boomers pre paid their SS retirement benefits. Get that?

[democrattotheend]

66. As are Millenials now

Or at least, we are supposed to be. But in reality we are funding the Boomers' retirement without any guarantee or even likelihood that the programs will be there for us when we retire.

By the time we retire, we will have paid as much if not more for our benefits than people retiring now.

[jeff47]

83. If someone tells you Social Security won't be there for us...

they are lying. They hope you will believe their lies so that you'll help destroy it.

[HiPointDem]

28. kr. why are we being stampeded into immediate changes?

[still_one]

30. A democratic site spouting right wing talking points. Hell has frozen

Over and I am very disappointed

[HiPointDem]

32. orwell-speak at a democratic site. wow.

[still_one]

33. A better characterization

[HiPointDem]

42. it's your post characterizing the OP as right-wing talking points i refer to.

[still_one]

45. Regardless that is the line they use

[HiPointDem]

47. Link to any member of the GOP saying that cutting benefits now to prevent future benefit cuts

is ridiculous. Which is what the OP is saying.

[sabrina 1]

34. This is nonsense. SS needs only two things to make it solvent for the next 75 -

100 years. Raise the cap and keep Americans employed and earning a livable wage.

SS will never need benefit cuts unless we buy into this right wing garbage, coming as expected from the corporate media.

Why is this nonsense making its way to a democratic board?

It shows how badly Democrats have educated their base when people are actually willing to give any credibility to this nonsense.

Eta, lol, 'read before posting' next time, sabrina'!

[Evergreen Emerald]

38. Exactly. And ss has nothing to do with the budget. It is all about reps

Destruction of the social safety net.


It is bs.




Sorry for typos....iPad small keypad

[duffyduff]

60. I am sick of Cato Institute lies being spread about SS

I heard this bullshit thirty years ago. It was bullshit then, and it is bullshit now.

Edit: This isn't a critique of the OP, but I wish the people peddling it were joking as well. Unfortunately, they are not.

[DirkGently]

36. Only SS cuts can prevent SS cuts

[L0oniX]

39. Most baby boomers will be dead within 30 years.

[democrattotheend]

49. And sadly, too few seem to care

Whether there is anything left in the SS trust fund for future generations, or how much debt they leave us with.

[Oilwellian]

75. Your logic escapes me

If you agree with the chained CPI cuts, then you are agreeing to guaranteed cuts in YOUR benefits when you retire. That's what chained CPI IS...CUTS IN BENEFITS. YOUR generation will be hit extremely hard by this Draconian move because your benefits will not reflect the true rate of inflation. Your SS dollars will buy far less at that point in time, so unless benefits are INCREASED, your generation is up Shit's Creek. Why on earth would you advocate for CUTS? Jeez Louiseeee!

Secondly, to play into the hands of the puppet masters, and act out their game on a public democratic forum by pitting one generation of Americans against another, is IMHO the epitome of "the stupid, it hurts." Plus, it's not just your generation who will be affected by the chained CPI. Seniors today will be seeing cuts as well.

[MindandSoul]

41. Why not raise SS taxes for salaries above $250,000 a year?

We need more money to come into SS?

Simple. . .we can keep the system we have now, and continue to limit SS taxes to the first $112,000 of income each year. . .then give a "donut hole" where SS taxes are no longer paid (let's say, between the $112,000 and $250,000 or even $400,000), but then reinstated the taxes for all earnings about $400,000.

This should bring in a pretty penny in the SS fund!

[HiPointDem]

43. The TF already has over $2.5 trillion dollars in securities in it. How about the general fund pay

back some of that borrowed money before you let the government borrow more?

[GoCubsGo]

46. Yep.

Congress has been using the Trust Fund as their piggy bank for decades. Pay it back, and it will be solvent well beyond the 30-some-odd years it's already solvent. I'm sick of hearing how Social Security and Medicare need to be cut to lower the deficit. They have NOTHING to do with the deficit.

[Romulox]

87. Engage with reality, would you? Congress is debating MORE TAX CUTS along with SS cuts.

[fadedrose]

50. Fix the economy, build more manufacturing plants, etc.,

And tax revenues will increase. Low tax revenues are the result of, not the cause of, a poor economy that can't afford SS...

[doc03]

53. Then why did they cut the payroll tax? n/t

[Jefferson23]

58. BUT their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents.

* Enough said.

[Demo_Chris]

62. Can we please stop fucking the future

Working people today are lucky to get a minimum wage job at Walmart. They have no hours, no benefits, no healthcare, no nothing except eternal wars. And the crosshairs are always centered on them. For once--

Just ONCE!

Can we please stop fucking the future! If you want to gut Social Security, if you think that's a fine idea, then cut it NOW and let's see how well that works out. If old people today cannot afford it, how in the hell are a bunch of Walmart workers supposed to manage? For working people today everything else is already gone -- jobs, benefits, homes, healthcare, and even bill of rights -- let's not destroy this too.

[Romulox]

89. You heard them--they don't expect to be alive in 30 years, so they don't care...

It's wretch worthy, but at least it's honest.

[MadHound]

67. Get back to me when you cut military spending in half,

Then perhaps we can talk about cutting Social Security.

[patrice]

70. +++1 & put the money saved into developing authentically NEW forms of entrepreneurship which

include amongst other things: much stronger employee profit sharing & professional co - operatives that do the product/service quality development & cost-control piece in very enterprise specific ways.

....................

Don't like the word "cuts" relative to Social Security, though, 'cause I don't want anyone to get the WRONG idea!! We're looking for value in exchange for value. NO cuts.

[Major Nikon]

79. if we cut our military spending in half, we'd still spend more than the next 4 countries combined

[EC]

69. We may never have to cut them.

Grow the base . Get immigration done - more people paying in. Raise or eliminate the cap - more people paying in.

[patrice]

72. That WOULD make it easier to talk about DEVELOPMENT, e.g. HR 676 Expanded & Improved Medicare for

All.

[Romulox]

92. Immigrants will one day want to collect Social Security, themselves. Either the plan is sound

or its not--adding more potential beneficiaries alone won't fix it.

[doc03]

73. The age for full SS was gradually increased 2 months

each year from 65 to 67. But the rearly retirement age was left at 62. How about gradually raising the early retirement age from 62 2 months a year until it is 64?

[datasuspect]

74. 30 years?

hopefully the great comet will smash into our planet before then.

[Romulox]

88. Thanks for expressing the "I got mine; screw you!" attitude that animates this debate.

You HAVE to understand your attitude is why younger people don't "have your back", right? 30 years is within the lifetimes of current workers.

[Hoyt]

93. I never expected to find "I got mine, screw you" attitude here. Life is going to suck in 25 years.

If we are in for decades of slow growth, relatively high unemployment, things are going to get tough unless folks work together to make the best out of life for the masses. I'm no longer sure that will happen. I'm beginning to think we are going to end up closer to Greece than I originally thought. When austerity hits, the yelling/protesting will be futile.

Hope I'm totally wrong.