Does Biden want to cut social security?

[mysteryowl]

I have seen some posts that he was in favor of cutting social security.
I remember during Obama's time that Obama was willing to cut social security by 20%.

Does anyone know more about this and Biden's stance?

Update:
I just did a duckduckgo search and found this. Is it fake news?

Joe Biden Has Called for Social Security Cuts 3 Times

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/05/17/joe-biden-has-called-for-social-security-cuts-3-ti.aspx

[Boxerfan]

1. I know who is has & wants to.....

And it is the Republicans.Don't you think you should attack them maybe?

[mysteryowl]

2. This is a quest for understanding.

I just did a duckduckgo search and found this. Is it fake news?

Joe Biden Has Called for Social Security Cuts 3 Times

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/05/17/joe-biden-has-called-for-social-security-cuts-3-ti.aspx

[Merlot]

5. If it is a "quest for understanding" then I'd suggest google is your friend

Posting threads with questions that "some people are saying..." comes across as an inflammatory tactic.

[mysteryowl]

9. I am not intending to be inflammatory.

I have been hearing about this and wanted to know if it was fake news or not.
I will take down this thread if it goes sour.

[TwilightZone]

18. The topic has been covered extensively here.

That's why a question professing no knowledge on the subject at this point comes off as a bit disingenuous to some. That may certainly not be your intent, but it's why your question is being met with a bit of resistance and skepticism.

It's clear that Biden doesn't want to cut SS*, and Sanders has been called out for his assertions otherwise by Paul Krugman and many others. I linked to a post about Krugman's response in another reply.

*https://joebiden.com/older-americans/

[mysteryowl]

28. This is all new news to me. It might be repeat for others, but it is new to me.

I am trying to understand articles like this that someone posted in this thread.
I can see why it is unclear where he stands.

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/13/biden-cuts-social-security/

[Thekaspervote]

43. Intercept has put out some very inflammatory statements regarding anyone except their

Very favorites...the far left. So not surprised that they would put out information that says Biden is not pro SS.

Hope that helps

[JHB]

26. There is a way to determine whether it is fake news

1) Run several searches using different search terms. This will initially turn up a greater variety of sources, but will also help you refine your search terms to get a better percentage of hits with more reporting and information and informed opinion, less that are simply spin and "alternative facts" and not-particularly-well-informed opinions.

2) Read you better hits. Sort them out, determine which ones have real information and toss the junk ones. Compare what the keepers say against each other. Get a sense of the context. There can be nuances.

3) Be prepared to spend more than 5 minutes accomplishing 1 and 2.

[jimfields33]

51. I'd like to know his vote on the 1986 age raise of social security

I still can’t believe the Democratic house voted to raise it.

[delisen]

55. It was raised to fix a known problem and was widely

Discussed and backed among the population .

Republicans like Bush later tried to claim the problem had not been fixed. He was hoping younger workers were ignorant of the history abd facts. His attempt failed

[Doremus]

58. It's unreal isn't it. I was in my 40s then so I didn't pay much attention but if they hadn't pushed

the age back, I'd be able to retire with full SS in 2 months. Thanks to this so-called "fix," I can't retire now until July 2021.

Wish this was the only instance of "go along to get along," but sadly it's not.

[TwilightZone]

3. No, he doesn't want to cut SS.

And Sanders knows it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287436225

[George II]

4. No. He NEVER wanted to cut social security. Many years ago he, along with many in Congress....

....wanted to put a moratorium on increases (for less than a year) to close a huge budget gap.

That video that Sirota has posted on twitter about a hundred times was of Biden MOCKING Paul Ryan, aping his words, but Sirota won't tell you that or use the entire video.

[still_one]

10. +++

[PatSeg]

13. And now Biden wants to raise the ceiling

on Social Security taxes to $400,000, which will enable much needed increases in Social Security benefits.

[hangaleft]

38. That's laudable

The ceiling should be completely eliminated. FICA is a regressive tax.

Moreover, I would make passive income subject to FICA, too.

(OT — I’d eliminate the distinction between and treatment of passive and active income.)

PREFERRED CANDIDATE — ELIZABETH WARREN

[patricia92243]

47. Thanks for the explanation. Like the OP, I needed answers not

a bunch of silly snipping.

[emmaverybo]

53. Thank you. You clarified better than I have seen elsewhere.

[whathehell]

6. Bernie Sanders wants to expand it..

for the sake of his candidacy, I would hope not.

[Turin_C3PO]

7. I don't think

it would be a bad thing to increase SS benefits, particularly for those at the lower income level.

[whathehell]

25. Of course it wouldn't

but first, Billionaires need their Trillion Dollar Tax Cuts. :

[Turin_C3PO]

31. Ah, of course.

Can’t forget about those impoverished billionaires.

[rzemanfl]

8. NTSA. n/t

[MineralMan]

11. I can see that you are concerned about this.

Joe Biden has made his support for Social Security very, very clear. Perhaps you missed it.

[George II]

20. I think what prompted a lot of this is that David Sirota was on MSNBC this morning claiming....

....that Biden has been campaigning to cut Social Security for the last thirty years.

That was an outright LIE, and Velshi didn't call him out on that.

[MineralMan]

23. Yes, it is a lie, and it's a terrible mistake for the Sanders campaign

David Sirota is not an asset for Bernie Sanders. Not at all an asset.

[mysteryowl]

36. I don't watch MSNBC and I don't know who David Sirota is.

[George II]

39. David Sirota is Sanders' "National Speech Writer", aka "Communications Director", aka now....

...according to his Twitter profile, "I work for Bernie Sanders".

His title has changed twice and now I see he doesn't even talk about a title anymore, just that he works for him.

He post dozens of tweets a day bashing Biden, most of them total lies.

[still_one]

45. He is one of sanders Hatchet men. When Sanders hired Jill Stein supporter Briahna Joy Gray, and

Hillary hating David Sirota and Nina Turner when he started his presidential campaign spoke volumes about the kind of divisive and vindictive person he is

[Turin_C3PO]

12. I don't believe he wants SS cut.

It’s the Republicans who are always trying to gut Social Security.

[Butterflylady]

30. If that were true

The repugs would love him. Nuff said.

[Sloumeau]

14. Let me explain this to you.

Joe Biden has never "wanted" to cut Social Security. However, because Republicans cut taxes so much during the Reagan years, and then because they started stealing funds from the Social Security fund, at some points the financial wizards started saying that eventually, the Social Security fund would run out.

In addition, all of those Reagan tax cuts meant that the U.S. was running in the red and that the yearly deficit was growing, as well as the national debt. During the 1990s, Republicans insisted on cuts in spending instead of tax increases in order to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget seemed like a sensible idea at the time, so a number of Democrats started working with Republicans to try and hammer out a deal. Because Joe Biden believed that it would only be fair if any possible budget cuts involved all spending, he said that cuts should include Social Security. This was not just because of the budget shortfall overall, but because of fears that if the money going out to Social Security recipients was not cut a little then, it would eventually run out and then there would be huge cuts to recipients later on. This would never been an issue if Republicans had not cut taxes and then started robbing the Social Security fund.

Eventually, a budget was created that did not involve cuts in Social Security when some analysts realized that the Social Security fund would actually be solvent for decades. So, because of cuts in other areas, and because Social Security was in better shape than people realized, the cuts never had to be made. Social Security Cuts would never have been suggested in the first place but for the ridiculous Reagan tax cuts and the subsequent raiding of the Social Security fund.

[Turin_C3PO]

15. Thanks for the explanation!

Makes sense.

[KPN]

27. Thanks. That's my recollection pretty much.

I do think Biden was wrong in being open to cuts to Social Security as part of a balanced budget plan that would use or be built on the notion of cuts in all spending. The problem was a manufactured one by the Rs. That would have been the correct position to take in my view; meaning cuts to SS, Medicare are off-the-table.

[MichMan]

42. How did this happen when the House was controlled by our party the entire Reagan presidency ? nt

[Sloumeau]

46. When Reagan won in 1980, he won big.

The U.S. was in a recession, the economy had been poor for about 2 years. The Republicans ran on Supply-Side Economics in 1980, the idea that tax cuts would spur economic growth. Because Carter, while being able to lessen inflation, had also seen a big slowdown in the economy, some Democrats were willing to try Supply-Side Economics. Republicans were able to cobble together a majority in Congress by getting all Republicans to vote for them along with some Democrats. Democrats coming up for reelection in 1982 were especially worried that if they did not let Reagan try his "Voodoo economics" after winning so big, they might lose reelection.

The tax cuts were implemented, and Reagan also began increased spending on the military. The tax cuts, along with military spending, stimulated the economy and the economy improved. We also began a period of massive debt increases. The Republicans simply ignored the fact that the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, and pointed to the improved economy. Americans were so glad to have a better economy that they ignored the budget deficits. The U.S. was now living under Reaganomics.

[Faux pas]

16. Check it

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/13/biden-cuts-social-security/

[mysteryowl]

21. I will read the article, but I can see that these kinds of articles have indeed been circulating.

So there is some information out there about it, hence my inquiry.

It would be a great discussion during a debate.

[NYMinute]

29. The intercept???????????????

bwahahahahahahahahaha



Joe/Kamala or Biden/Harris 2020!!
Either way they are stronger together & can't be bought!!!
Jump on the Biden Bandwagon & abandon the revolution!!

[mysteryowl]

34. I am reading the Intercept article and it is making specific researched points.

I take it you don't respect the Intercept.

[NYMinute]

35. Intercept is a worthless rag

[Hortensis]

17. Biden for 50 YEARS has protected SS and its recipients.

When you know the candidate, scurrilous liars can't confuse and trick you by misrepresenting details.

It also makes knowing what's truth and what's gong to be a lie easy. Dirty politicians depend on sowing doubt and confusion, not just the lies themselves. But when you know who Biden is, you know what the intent and end result will have been. No need to look up dozens of complicated legislative histories to find the truth.

Btw, shouldn't Sanders be warning people of the Republicans' plans to destroy SS? Isn't deliberately confusing people about who's doing what by telling them Biden's also an enemy of SS itself a dangerous failure to protect it from the Republicans?

Confused, doubting Democrats who don't know what to think don't vote, while Republicans don't bother with confusion or doubt, they just vote their party.

[emmaverybo]

54. Bravo.

[pazzyanne]

19. Joe Biden's Official positions on Social Security:

1. He will put [Social Security] on a path to long-term solvency by asking Americans with especially high wages to pay the same taxes on those earnings that middle-class families pay.

2. He will allow [a] surviving spouse to keep a higher share of the [Social Security] benefits...raising the monthly payment by about 20% for affected beneficiaries.

3. He will provide the oldest beneficiaries...with a higher monthly check to help protect retirees from the pain of dwindling retirement saving

4. Under the Biden Plan, workers who spent 30 years working will get a benefit of at least 125% of the poverty level.

5. Biden is starkly opposed to privatization

6. He sides with his party on increasing the taxable earnings cap

7. He favors means testing for benefits

8. Biden has been willing to entertain raising the retirement age in the past

9. He's more of a centrist, and his views have changed considerably over time.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/05/31/joe-biden-on-social-security-6-things-you-should-k.aspx

[TwilightZone]

22. Interesting. Same source, same author, two weeks later.

Seems that the author did a bit more research and did a follow-up.

That article is more applicable to the OP's question than the article they linked.

[mysteryowl]

32. Thanks, I will read it.

[hangaleft]

40. I oppose means testing

Sounds good in theory, but once you introduce means testing it becomes “welfare”, and need I say more?

PREFERRED CANDIDATE — ELIZABETH WARREN

[loyalsister]

48. Exactly

That's why Yang was correct to provide the benefit to everyone. Equalizing the starting gate neutralizes poverty. A quote I read in "Nomadland" stuck with me. "Capitalism is a game. Basic survival should not be part of a game."

[hangaleft]

50. You've inadvertently hit on one of my favorite points

I strongly feel that when a wealthy individual dies, his spouse should inherit the bulk of his or her estate. If there is no spouse, the kids (if there are any) receive a nominal inheritance, but otherwise start “the game” from the same starting point as everyone else. No head starts! Everyone has to build their own nest egg from scratch. (The rest of the estate escheats to the state for funding public schools.)

PREFERRED CANDIDATE — ELIZABETH WARREN

[TexasTowelie]

56. I don't think that is necessarily a wise idea.

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2020, 11:46 PM - Edit history (1)

My sister has a son who has severe autism and he is incapable of holding any type of employment (her son is in his twenties). My BIL makes a good income and they are setting up a trust for that son. While my nephew will most likely have to be placed in an institution at a later point in his life, the fact that my BIL is providing for the needs of his child while he can actually benefits society by reducing my nephew's dependence on government programs.

There are plenty of people in their fifties that have become unemployable and that will have to rely on whatever they inherit in order to survive until they are eligible for retirement benefits.

I also have qualms as to whether such a policy might encourage reckless spending. If I knew that I couldn't take it with me, or bequeath money as I see fit, then my attitude will change and I will spend frivolously.

The idea of what is a nominal inheritance will also vary from person to person and by regional differences. I could last for four-five years on $100K in rural Texas, but that may only be enough to get by for one-two years elsewhere in the country, particularly for someone that has a family. The "rest of the estate escheats to the state for funding public schools" smacks of communism. I don't have a problem with raising the rate of the estate tax progressively, but when the government gets everything over a certain amount it will affect the behavior of people so that they become less productive.

Confiscating the portion of estates also places the government with a perverse incentive to let people die. Considering that we are looking at a coronavirus pandemic, I don't want to provide another reason for the GOP to not react to the pandemic while they covet the assets of the population.

[hangaleft]

57. Your points are well taken

Some adjustments would have to be made to my thinking. Substantial adjustments.

But my basic premise and its underlying rationale remain unchanged — kids born with a huge head start render the system unfair right out of the box. Trump’s tax cuts eliminated the estate tax. Which is obscene.

There has to be a middle ground that would address your concerns (and those others would possibly have) and mine.

Thanks for your post. You raised some compelling points. I hope you see mine.

PREFERRED CANDIDATE — ELIZABETH WARREN

[TexasTowelie]

60. I did understand the points you were making.

It is unfair that some of the least deserving people are beneficiaries of a financial advantage and if they had to struggle a bit more, then they might have more compassion and understanding for those that are less fortunate.

When I read comments from others that we should raise taxes to the point that they become confiscatory, then I begin to consider the other side of the coin and wonder what impact that would have on behavior. That applies to all types of taxation--personal income, capital gains, estate, wealth, and corporate taxes. We don't want to raise taxes to the point that it reduces the incentive to work, save for the future, or provide for job growth. If the tax rates become too great, then it encourages the flight of capital to other countries where people and businesses can retain more of those assets. It didn't matter as much in the past since there were some places in the world that most Americans would never consider moving to because of oppression. However, as the conditions in other countries improve and as people and business have grown more global in nature it does illustrate the point that the U.S. isn't as desirable a place to live or conduct business than it has in the past.

[hangaleft]

61. I stand by my basic premise

We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree.

PREFERRED CANDIDATE — ELIZABETH WARREN

[Happy Hoosier]

59. Disagree on that to some extent.

Building generational wealth leads to financial stability. I don’t object to ensuring the financial security of your kids. It’s part of your job as a parent to do that. The problem comes when the accumulation is massive. That is what we need to counter.

[mysteryowl]

41. I did not know he was "entertaining" the idea of raising the retirement age.

I do know that would be very hard on people that use their bodies for a living. Labor contractors.
It is not as difficult for people working at a desk.

[TwilightZone]

24. The author of the article you linked wrote a follow-up two weeks later.

The follow-up is more applicable to your question than the article you linked.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287643502#post19

[NoMoreRepugs]

33. Sanders needs to lose in Michigan and disband his

attack dogs like Sirota from spreading misinformation about Biden ..... eliminating the threat to our Republic that is tRUMP is the single most important thing there is....period.

[showblue22]

37. He is putting out a lot of out right lies

and going super negative.

[hangaleft]

44. Obama and Biden are not necessarily of the same mind

BUT... if I’m not mistaken (and I might be misremembering), Obama offered up Chained CPI SS increases in furtherance of a Grand Bargain without it having been asked for by the other side of the aisle. Chained CPI increases would reduce SS increases from what they currently are, and they’re already abysmally low.

Now, I could be wrong about Obama’s having offered up Chained CPI. And, even if he did, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Biden supports implementing Chained CPI SS increases as part of a Grand Bargain.

PREFERRED CANDIDATE — ELIZABETH WARREN

[RussBLib]

49. he used to

But apparently now Joe has gotten the message to FUND it better and not cut it. It would seem so simple. Just raise the FICA cap up to about $200k. That would probably fund SS for another several years, at least.

[bluedye33139]

52. Increasing the cap is one of his goals.

And it is a solution that all rational people support.